Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise, as so many of my colleagues have, to mourn and pay tribute to Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii.

He was a giant of the Senate. He was an individual whose courage, whose compassion, and whose commitment to this country has never been exceeded by anyone who served here--indeed, by any American I can think of.

A few years ago, I was asked to introduce the Senator at an event. I wrote down some points on a card that I kept on my desk, and will forever keep on my desk:

Second Lieutenant Daniel K. Inouye, E Company, 442nd

Regimental Combat Team, San Terenzo, Italy, April 21, 1945.

That was the day he was wounded leading his platoon against an enemy pillbox, the day for which he would be ultimately awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his actions.

Then I have another date: May 8, 1945. That was VE Day, the end of the war. Seventeen days before the end of the war, when Berlin was encircled and collapsing, when American forces were rushing and the end was clear, and indeed every soldier recognized that the war was coming to an end, Senator Inouye didn't stop serving, didn't stop sacrificing, didn't stop giving his all to protect his soldiers and accomplish his mission. Indeed, that spirit of never giving up, of never failing to do his duty, animated his service in the Senate, animated his service to this country, and to the State of Hawaii.

At the time I gave these remarks, he was 1 of 90 living holders of the Congressional Medal of Honor. Today we mourn his passing, his contributions to Hawaii, his contributions to this Senate which he held in the highest esteem and which he personified so grandly.

I think one of the factors that led him to a career in public service and led him to such distinguished service was the recognition--not theoretically but practically--that despite his great suffering and sacrifice, he was lucky because there were many other young men and women who perished in that war and in subsequent wars; that he had sacrificed much but had not given his life, although he very nearly gave his life.

At the outset of the war, the Librarian of Congress Archibald MacLeish, wrote:

They say, We were young. We have died. Remember us.

They say, We have done what we could but until it is

finished it is not done.

They say, We have given our lives but until it is finished

no one can know what our lives gave.

They say, Our deaths are not ours: they are yours: they

will mean what you make them.

They say, Whether our lives and our deaths were for peace

and a new hope or for nothing we cannot say: it is you who

must say this.

In everything Dan Inouye did, he spoke for those soldiers. He gave their lives meaning by his selfless service and sacrifice to this Nation. He gave it every day by making this place--this country--live up to its highest ideals, a place of opportunity for all, a place of fairness and decency. He did it as few did.

So those voices that were stilled in 1945, and in the Korean War and in the war in Vietnam and subsequent wars, always had a voice here; and it wasn't just words, it was actions. His life gave meaning, and that might be one of the highest achievements anyone can reach in this life.

We all know his extraordinary service in so many different ways. We know also, in one of the great coincidences, three young men were in an Army hospital in Michigan: Dan Inouye, Phil Hart, and Bob Dole, American heroes; and that later they would come to this Senate and serve with distinction. I think it was particularly meaningful that just a few days ago Senator Robert Dole--another great American--was on the floor of this Senate, still serving, still emblematic of the ``greatest generation.''

We will miss Senator Inouye. There are few words and not enough eloquence to describe the loss. I, too, particularly want to thank and extend my condolences to his wife Irene, to his son Ken, to his daughter-in-law Jessica, to his granddaughter Maggie, and to his stepdaughter Jennifer Hirano. They have lost more than any of us because they have lost a husband, a father, and a grandfather.

Let me just conclude with the words uttered centuries ago by Thucydides:

The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision

of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet

notwithstanding, go out to meet it.

Dan Inouye knew the dangers. Dan Inouye knew that the glory was fleeting, and in fact combat wasn't particularly glorious at all. But he knew it was honorable to serve. He knew it was honorable to sacrifice for his soldiers and for his comrades. He knew it was honorable and decent to serve his State and his Nation, and he never failed to go forth to meet the challenges of his time.

Now it is our time. Now we must give words and meaning to the voices that have been stilled in the service to this Nation. One of those giants and one of those powerful voices was Senator Daniel Inouye. The test will be whether we can measure up to what he did, and I hope for the sake of this country we can.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended to 4 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes in morning business.

Madam President, I rise today to speak about the real-world consequences of failing to achieve a fair and balanced solution to avert the automatic tax hikes and spending cuts that would otherwise occur at the end of December--the end of this month.

Failing to continue unemployment insurance, allowing taxes to rise on middle-income Americans, and cutting Federal spending too much and too soon during a struggling economic recovery could, as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated, cause a new recession.

This is a fate we can and should avoid for people in my State and across the country. Indeed, families in Rhode Island are still getting their economic footing and cannot afford another economic setback. An economic downturn will erase the strides we have made so far to strengthen our economy and exacerbate the widening income inequality, which Americans sense and recognize in an economy that all too often seems stacked against them. Instead, we must work toward a compromise that is fair, helps the middle class, creates jobs, and strengthens and accelerates our economic recovery.

As I see it, widening income inequality and the sense that future generations will not see the same kind of economic security as my generation is one of the most pressing challenges facing our Nation. Over the past several decades, top earners have taken a bigger and bigger chunk of income while wages have stagnated for far too many Americans.

From 2000 to 2007, incomes for 90 percent of workers rose by about 4 percent, while the top one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans saw income gains of 94 percent. The vast majority of Americans have seen wage gains that are barely enough to keep their heads above water, while a very small number of top-income earners have seen an extraordinary growth in income.

In 2010 alone, about 20 percent of all income went to the top 1 percent. We are now back to income inequality levels similar to just before the Great Depression. Such wide disparities are unsustainable, create economic instability and threaten our social fabric.

In the past, when income inequality has reached these kinds of levels, Democrats and Republicans have both recognized its destabilizing impact and worked together to reward success while providing meaningful opportunities and a sense of fairness for all Americans.

I believe there are straightforward ways we can begin to reverse this escalating income inequality--ways which are true to the founding principles of our Nation. After all, we have done it before. From the end of World War II and well into the 1970s, incomes grew rapidly across the United States and economic prosperity was broadly shared. As our economy grew, every level of America shared in that growth.

By making education affordable, fostering innovation and job creation, and providing economic security to retirees through Medicare and Social Security, our country went from a paralyzing Great Depression to an economic superpower. We were able to accomplish such a drastic transformation because we were willing to consider revenue as a way to invest in the future and promise economic security to our seniors.

Focusing spending on policies that work and balancing revenue is at the core of this debate. I have made tough choices in the 1990s that balanced the budget, generated a surplus, and supported robust job creation. In January of 1993, the unemployment rate stood at 7.3 percent, and by January of 2001 that rate had been reduced down to 3.9 percent. That period of record growth also saw a substantial decline in the poverty rate. In 1993, 15.1 percent of Americans were in poverty, but thanks to job growth and an expanding economy based upon a balanced approach to deficit reduction--including revenue and reduction in expenditures--poverty fell to 11.3 percent in 2000.

But the unpaid wars of the Bush administration, excess tax cuts for the wealthy, and a financial crisis brought on by lax regulation under the Bush Presidency erased those hard-fought gains of the 1990s. As a result, we have seen education become more expensive, Federal investments that support economic prosperity for all have been reduced, and economic gains have been concentrated at the top. Meanwhile, in spite of repeated claims, lower tax rates for the wealthiest haven't driven job creation and economic growth. We have had record low income tax rates; yet now we are struggling with one of the worst unemployment crises we have seen since the Great Depression.

I believe the election has shown Americans want us to return to the principles that work for the benefit of everyone, not just a select few. With that in mind, the path forward should be clear.

We should continue tax cuts for income up to one-quarter of a million dollars and reduce the deficit by nearly $1 trillion. We should continue extended unemployment insurance for 2 million people who will lose it otherwise. We should prevent further immediate cuts to Federal investments in things that keep us safe, grow our economy, and enhance the lives of Americans, whether it be infrastructure, workforce training or research and development.

What we should absolutely not do is make changes, hasty changes, to Social Security and Medicare that would undermine the promise of economic security to seniors, not just this generation of seniors but succeeding generations of seniors. Fairness, opportunity, respect for the rules, and a sense of security in retirement, those are the priorities that can't be lost as we debate the budget.

So I am disheartened to hear that Republicans are holding the middle class and the entire economy hostage in order to preserve nearly $1 trillion in additional tax cuts for the top 2 percent of Americans, while at the same time proposing detrimental changes to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. I believe this is an untenable position and one I hope my colleagues on the other side will soon abandon.

Moreover, the Republican proposal does not provide immediate, short- term aid to 2 million Americans out of work and looking for employment. These were men and women who were working, and as a consequence of the economic difficulties over the last few years have lost their jobs. Their proposal would not, as the President's plan does, put Americans back to work, not just by continuing benefits in terms of unemployment insurance but by putting Americans back to work improving our roads, bridges, and transportation infrastructure.

Unfortunately, in the past, too many on the other side of the aisle have stymied efforts to accelerate the recovery like blocking jobs legislation that was paid for by asking millionaires to pay Clinton-era rates on income over $1 million. They have endorsed proposals that would transform Medicare into a voucher program and Medicaid into a block grant, which would merely shift health care costs to seniors and States rather than address underlying cost drivers and inefficiencies.

So it is not surprising Speaker Boehner has put forth a significantly flawed proposal, in my view, that would jeopardize our economic recovery, undermine the middle class by not providing immediate support for our recovery, and do very little to achieve real deficit reduction.

While the President, in contrast, has put forward a clear and specific plan, the Speaker's proposal is light on details related to deficit reduction. It is, I sense, another sign that the Republican Party is out of touch with the majority of Americans who favor the President's approach. We have had an election in which voters made it clear that if we are going to propose major policy changes, then those proposals must be real and credible. Americans want us to be candid and honest with them as we make these difficult decisions.

We can disagree about policy--we do that all the time--but it is hard to disagree about simple arithmetic. The Speaker, for example, has proposed $800 billion in taxes through ``limiting deductions and lowering rates,'' also known as ``lowering rates and broadening the base.'' But as many nonpartisan analysts have shown, the numbers don't add up. ``Lowering the rates and broadening the base'' just means tax cuts for the wealthy and higher taxes for the middle class because deductions for home ownership, charity, State and local taxes would have to be severely limited for most Americans in order to pay for the top rates and avoid further growing the deficit.

It is not only the math that doesn't add up, but it is also their assumption about job creation and the economy. Historical data shows reductions in top tax rates have had little impact when it comes to creating jobs and boosting growth. But tax cuts do, according to the data, increase income inequality.

In contrast, the President and Democrats have been clear with the American people that we can't afford nearly $1 trillion in additional tax breaks for the top 2 percent--which do little for job creation and exacerbate income inequality. We should let the top two marginal tax rates expire. Democrats have already passed legislation in the Senate to do that. And again, to be clear, letting the top marginal tax rates on income over a quarter of a million dollars expire would still mean all Americans get a tax cut for income below that level.

Moreover, Speaker Boehner, in his proposal, again raises the specter of increasing the Medicare eligibility age and reducing Social Security benefits. While raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 beginning in 2014 would result in $125 billion in Federal savings, it would basically shift all those costs onto State governments and the private sector.

To help illustrate this cost shift, the Kaiser Family Foundation examined what would happen during the first year the policy would take effect, 2014. In that year, individuals would not qualify for Medicare until age 65 and 2 months. This change would trigger $5.7 billion in Federal savings. However, spending on the part of State governments, employers, beneficiaries and individuals and families slated to purchase health insurance through new health insurance exchanges would double--to the tune of $11.4 billion. Indeed, increasing the Medicare eligibility age is a shell game that will just shift costs and do nothing to bend the proverbial cost curve.

If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle wish to reduce the deficit by $125 billion, there are better ways to do it. We can start by closing egregious loopholes that benefit companies that shift jobs overseas or benefit oil and gas companies.

And there are ways to reform Medicare and Medicaid without shifting costs to beneficiaries and making the goal of a secure retirement harder to achieve. Indeed, the Affordable Care Act makes a downpayment on deficit reduction with a sensible and thoughtful approach to addressing the underlying drivers of health care costs. And we can do more in this regard. We can eliminate overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans. We can allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate directly with companies on the cost of prescription drugs in Medicare--or, at the very least, increase rebates in programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.

We should not look to Social Security to solve our fiscal deficit either. Social Security will continue to spend less than it takes in until 2033. And even if we don't do anything to address this very long- term issue, beneficiaries would still receive 75 percent of their expected benefits, according to the law. Moreover, Social Security is not a driver of the deficit. If we make any changes to the program, they must be done, I believe, outside the debate on the deficit and directed at extending the life and solvency of the Social Security trust fund in order to keep our commitment, not only to this generation of seniors, but to succeeding generations of seniors.

Shoring up Social Security can be achieved in several ways, for example, by broadening the taxable wage base. The last time Social Security was reformed in 1983, the cap on taxable income covered 90 percent of earnings. Now the cap only covers 85 percent of income and is steadily decreasing. The first thing we can do is begin to restore the original intent of the program and we can do that by lifting the cap on wages over $250,000.

I hope my colleagues on the other side would hear the same message with respect to some of their proposals regarding Medicaid. Medicaid is already a rather efficient program. Medicaid actually costs less per beneficiary than private insurers to cover similar people with similar health issues. Medicaid spending has grown at a slower rate for beneficiaries than private insurance. Changing the financing structure of Medicaid is just another example to score a political victory at the expense of some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

I hope to work with all my colleagues, on both sides, to strengthen Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. But now, with only 3 weeks left, it is not the time to make hasty and drastic alterations to the foundation of economic security for seniors and for their families. Because when we talk about seniors, we are also talking about their sons and daughters who would have to step up and fill the gap if we made unwarranted changes to Medicare and to Social Security.

Many of these Republican proposals don't sound particularly serious. The revenue and deficit reduction targets are deceptive and, worst of all, it seems to be more sloganeering, not problem solving. Our goal should be improving the economy and reversing the stark trend of income inequality that has been exacerbated by this great recession and prolonged unemployment.

We should not cut the deficit on the backs of the middle class and seniors. We only have a few weeks before various provisions of the law will begin to cut into our economic growth. The loss of unemployment insurance, for example, will be immediately harrowing for the 2 million on unemployment insurance; middle-income families will be squeezed more and more as their taxes rise and government spending in critical programs is slashed, all because some on the other side are more concerned with protecting tax breaks for the wealthiest.

Economists believe this kind of economic contraction could lead to another recession, where once again low- and middle-income families will feel the brunt of the downturn and have the hardest time making up lost ground during the ensuing recovery.

I hope my Republican colleagues drop their attempts to cut the deficit on the backs of 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses in order to provide additional tax cuts to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. I hope my Republican colleagues drop their demands to make drastic and hasty changes to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. I urge them to pass the Middle Class Tax Cut Act, continue unemployment insurance, and work with us to develop a rational alternative to sequestration. This approach is fair to the middle class, will grow our economy and create jobs, and will help turn around income inequality in our country.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 13, 2012, at 10 a.m. in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Improving Care for Dually-Eligible Beneficiaries: A Progress Update.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 13, 2012, at 2 p.m. to hold a briefing entitled ``National Security Brief on Attacks in Benghazi.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 13, 2012, at 4 p.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 13, 2012, at 10 a.m. in room 432 of the Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Hurricane Sandy: Assessing the Federal Response and Small Business Recovery Efforts.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 13, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 13, 2012, at 10 a.m., to hold a Near Eastern and South Central Asian Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``Terrorist Networks in Pakistan and the Proliferation of IEDS.''

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

Madam President, we all recognize the country faces many challenges. Too many of our neighbors are still looking for work, and too often those with a job have not seen a raise in quite some time. Indeed, for many years people in Rhode Island and across the country have a growing sense that there is too much focus on the powerful few and not on the average family playing by the rules.

A quality higher education seems more unaffordable each year. Working men and women do not often feel the government understands their struggles and the need to move the country forward. They also want us to begin to balance the books, just as we did under President Clinton, with a sensible balanced approach, one that led to increasing wages across the board, increasing productivity, increasing employment, and a budget surplus before George W. Bush's policies took over.

Last year we took a step in balancing the books. We cut $1 trillion of Federal spending. We do not hear much about it, particularly from the other side of the aisle. But what it means is that every discretionary program will see less funding for the next decade, which will have a huge impact on my State and every State in the country.

If we are going to cut spending on education, research, and transportation to the tune of approximately $1 trillion, I think most Americans recognize that the other side of the equation has to be considered. Revenue needs to be part of a balanced plan to reduce the debt. The simple fact of the matter is that virtually every expert panel and commentator has said clearly that in order to reduce the deficit to a sustainable level, revenues have to go up. It is a matter of arithmetic. So the question that presents itself to us is, where does the revenue come from? I believe at the end of the day, the President's plan to continue to provide tax breaks for 98 percent of all Americans and let tax rates for the wealthiest return to the Clinton-era levels is about as fair a proposal as is possible at the moment. First, it recognizes that the middle class should not be the one on the chopping block where there are other options. Second, it asks those making more than a quarter of a million dollars to return to the same top rates we had for most of the 1990s. Third, it cuts everyone's taxes on the first quarter of a million dollars that you make.

What is sometimes lost in this debate is because of our progressive tax system, there will be no changes to the tax rates on income up to $250,000. The benefits of those tax cuts which were enacted in the early decades of the 2000s will still be there for 98 percent of Americans, and they will still be there for those paying additional revenue because of the reversal of the top two upper income tax rates. Yet our Republican colleagues in the House seem to have adopted a posture of obstruction and holding the middle class hostage in order to preserve nearly $1 trillion in tax cuts for the top 2 percent of Americans. If we do not extend these tax cuts for the middle class as the President has proposed, the typical Rhode Island family of four could see their taxes raised by an average of $2,200 in the year 2013. This would be a setback for our very fragile economic recovery. It is simply not fair to have these middle-income Rhode Islanders who are trying to make ends meet in this economy be further subject to a tax increase.

I think I listen pretty well to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. It seems they agree that, yes, these taxes should not go up on 98 percent of Americans. Indeed, in July they dropped their filibuster, enabling the Senate to pass the Middle Class Tax Cut Act. The bill prevents taxes from going up on 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses, and would cut the deficit by nearly $1 trillion.

As I mentioned, if the House does not pass this bill, middle-class families will see their taxes go up by an average of about $2,200. All the House has to do--and they can do it very quickly under their procedures--is take up the Senate-passed bill and pass it. We will put a significant downpayment on deficit reduction. We will provide certainty to 98 percent of Americans that their taxes will remain the same, and we can get onto other sensible appropriate reductions and expenditures and move the Nation forward.

It is heartening to hear some Republicans in the House such as Tom Cole of Oklahoma and Mike Simpson of Idaho talk about accepting this commonsense approach and locking in these tax rates for middle-income

Americans. Indeed, if the House, as I suggested, had an up-or-down vote on the Senate bill, I would suspect there would be enough Republicans willing to join the House Democrats in passing a tax cut for 98 percent of Americans and giving the business community the certainty it needs. Unfortunately, we have yet to see an indication from Speaker Boehner that he will let the Senate approved middle-class tax cut legislation have an up-or-down vote--despite the fact that by passing this bill every American, including the wealthiest, will get a tax break on the first quarter of a million dollars of income, and the Tax Code would become a bit fairer.

I am worried that there are too many on the other side of the aisle who are willing to let taxes increase on the middle class in order to stop the top two marginal tax rates from returning to Clinton-era levels for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. That, to me, is unfair. Indeed, it is an uncalled-for imposition on the vast majority of Americans.

Republicans would jeopardize our economic recovery by creating uncertainty around letting these tax provisions lapse for all Americans. It could hamper demand, restrict commerce, and impede recovery at a time when our economy is making fragile gains. Indeed, it would be similar to what we are seeing in other parts of the world, where austerity measures in Europe have already caused many of their economies to slip back into recession.

We can't do that. We have got to provide both confidence and the resources for consumers to go into the marketplace and continue to strengthen our recovery. And I would hope to accelerate this recovery because we need more demand, more jobs, more activity, not less.

Unfortunately, the record of some of our colleagues on the other side has suggested that when it comes to making difficult decisions on behalf of the majority of Americans they balk. I have seen in this Congress--the other side threaten a government shutdown and the other side seriously consider defaulting on the debts of the United States. I have seen threats to end unemployment insurance, which would harm our economy and tremendously disadvantage so many Americans who are looking for work. I am hopeful the House of Representatives can respond both thoughtfully and decisively by passing the legislation the Senate has already passed and continue the tax cuts for middle-income Americans while beginning to raise revenues from those who are the wealthiest amongst us.

In the spring of 2011, we were faced with the possibility of a government shutdown. In the summer of that same year, we were faced with the issue of the debt ceiling and government default. All of these attempts to disrupt and undercut the process of government had costs, real costs to our economy, real costs to our sense and the sense of the American people that we are effectively able to manage their affairs, for the welfare not of the very few but for all Americans.

Republicans have also blocked the American Jobs Act. A plan that analysts predicted would lead to the creation of nearly 2 million jobs--and at a time when those new jobs were and still urgently needed. Now with the accumulation of all these different threats to our economy, all these different dramatic moments, we are looking at automatic increases in taxes if the Middle Class Tax Cut Act is not adopted. Failure to pass the bill could severely impede or even reverse the economic recovery we have seen to date. And again, this economic recovery is not as strong as we want to see it, but it is heading at least in a positive direction.

We have to move forward decisively, with a balanced approach to ensure that the vast majority of Americans do not see their taxes go up. And that revenue is raised from those who are most able to afford it.

The President has been very clear that he will be strong in resisting overtures to extend the tax benefits for the wealthiest two percent of Americans. The American people agree. They re-elected him and they consistently, in just about every type of public survey, support his proposal.

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives are out of step and out of tune with the American public.

Speaker Boehner has not proposed a sensible, balanced approach that mixes revenues and expenditure reductions. Instead, he once again raises the spectre of cuts to Medicare and Social Security benefits. That is not the approach we have to take.

What we can do, what we should do, what we must do is simply ask the House of Representatives to take up what we have already passed here in the Senate, the Middle Class Tax Cut Act, immediately. That would provide the breakthrough we need to go forward, to continue to build on our economic recovery, and continue to respond to the legitimate needs of men and women all across this country. I hope House Republicans do that. I know I will be here, along with my colleagues, urging them to do that as quickly as possible.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time under Democratic control be allocated as follows: Senator Boxer for 15 minutes, Senator Casey for 10 minutes, and Senator Schumer for 5 minutes.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a detailee to the Committee on Banking, Housing, Urban Affairs, Catherine Topping, be granted the privileges of the floor for the remainder of this session.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. I wish to commend the work of my colleagues on the committee, particularly Chairman Levin, who is here, and Ranking Member McCain, for their incredible diligence, dedication, and commitment to the men and women of our Armed Forces.

For 50 consecutive years, the Senate has passed a Defense authorization bill, and I hope very much that we will soon be able to send the President a bill for his signature consistent with that record of faithful service to those who

serve us so faithfully. We owe it to our servicemembers and to the Nation to quickly but very deliberately pass this legislation and send it forward to the President. We made tough decisions putting this bill together--especially in these difficult economic times--but I am confident this bill provides a budget that allows the DOD to combat current threats, plan for future threats, and to provide for the welfare of our extraordinary men and women in uniform.

I wish to note a few issues in this legislation.

First, we have endeavored to make improvements to the Military Lending Act, which Congress passed in 2006 in order to protect Active- Duty servicemembers and their families from some types of high-cost loans and unfair credit practices. The Military Lending Act imposed a 36-percent annual percentage rate cap on certain types of consumer credit extended to servicemembers. Our intention was to protect Active- Duty servicemembers and their families from high-cost loans and unfair credit practices. Unfortunately, lenders have been finding ways to circumvent these regulations. For example, some payday lenders have made superficial changes to the structure of their loans, styling them as ``open-end'' credit or setting the terms slightly longer than the regulations to get around the rules under the Department of Defense of what constitutes ``consumer credit.''

I am pleased that provisions I added to the underlying bill address some of these problems with targeted changes to improve how this law is implemented. In particular, it removes definitional loopholes to ensure that payday and car title loans, whether structured as closed-ended or open-ended credit, are subject to the 36-percent cap and other protections of the MLA. Let me underscore the 36-percent cap. We are talking about a very generous rate of return on these loans to lenders, particularly in the context of very low rates across the economy. It also requires the DOD to review its MLA rules periodically and to consult with financial regulators biannually to determine if new credit products are harming servicemembers and should be covered by the Military Lending Act protections.

The bill has been strengthened by the recent passage of an amendment offered by Senator Mark Udall to remove a provision in the Senate Armed Services Committee-reported bill that would have limited the ability of the Department of Defense to purchase alternative fuels, such as advanced biofuels. I voted against this provision in the committee and joined my colleagues in urging a vote for this amendment. Reducing our dependence on oil requires a smart, balanced, and responsible energy policy, one that involves all government agencies, including the Department of Defense. I am pleased that the Department of Defense will retain the flexibility to pursue alternative fuel technologies that not only help them achieve their mission but also help our country reduce our dependence on oil.

In addition, Senator Hagan has offered an amendment to remove a provision that would prohibit the DOD from being able to enter into contracts for the planning, construction, or retrofitting of plants and refineries to produce advanced biofuels. I opposed this provision in the committee and encourage my colleagues to support Senator Hagan's amendment.

I am also working on a few amendments I would like to mention. One would provide further consumer credit protections for servicemembers, another would limit the increases of out-of-pocket prescription drug costs, and a third would create a pilot program to allow nonprofits to apply for grants to rehabilitate and modify homes for disabled veterans.

My amendment No. 3014 would further improve the Military Lending Act provisions in the underlying bill by strengthening its enforcement. During the past 5 years, we have learned that enforcement rules provided in the MLA are not up to the task. Currently, if a lender violates the Military Lending Act, it is a criminal misdemeanor, with violators to be fined as provided for in title XVIII or up to 1 year imprisonment or both. Criminal liability attaches only for knowingly violating the statute.

My amendment will clarify that all Federal agencies that enforce Federal credit laws can enforce the Military Lending Act. In addition, it will ensure that State attorneys general and State credit regulators who license and supervise many of the lenders who lend to our servicemembers and their families can enforce the Federal law protections provided by the Military Lending Act. I believe our service men and women need a full panoply of protection not just from the Department of Defense but from every Federal agency involved in these issues, including State and local agencies. I honestly believe that State and local officials, particularly where there are major installations, vigorously want to protect the rights and the benefits of our men and women in uniform, and they should have that opportunity.

Comprehensive and fair enforcement of the Military Lending Act is critical to Active-Duty servicemembers and their families. My amendment is supported by the Fleet Reserve Association, the Military Officers Association of America, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the Military Justice Project, the National Military Family Association, Americans for Financial Reform, the Center for Responsible Lending, the Consumer Federation of America, the National Consumer Law Center on behalf of its low-income clients, and the U.S. PIRG. All of these agencies recognize the need to protect our men and women in uniform.

I have joined with Senators Rubio, McCaskill, and Whitehouse to introduce amendment No. 3017 to curb the out-of-pocket prescription drug costs proposed for TRICARE beneficiaries. The Department of Defense has proposed an increase in prescription drug copayments for TRICARE beneficiaries. In some cases, copayments could almost double or even triple. For example, under the proposal, out-of-pocket costs for a brandname drug picked up at a local pharmacy would more than double, increasing from $12 to $26. Ensuring the fiscal soundness of TRICARE is critical, but we should limit the burden on beneficiaries in our efforts to shore up the program.

This amendment would curb the out-of-pocket prescription drug costs proposed for TRICARE beneficiaries. For instance, instead of paying $26 for a brandname drug, a TRICARE beneficiary would pay $17 at a retail pharmacy, a $5 increase from last year as opposed to a $14 increase. DOD would be prohibited from instituting dramatic increases in prescription drug copayments in future years. Copayments could only increase at the rate of the annual cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA.

To protect beneficiaries from out-of-pocket increases, the amendment proposes to achieve the necessary savings by requiring the Secretary to enroll beneficiaries age 65 and older with maintenance medication--that is, medications for chronic conditions--in a 5-year mail order pharmacy pilot program. Beneficiaries would be eligible to opt out of the mail order program after 1 year if they felt it did not adequately meet their needs.

To ensure TRICARE beneficiaries have access to their prescription medications, they would be able to secure an initial 30-day fill at a local retail pharmacy. And the amendment ensures that they will not be denied a maintenance medication at a retail pharmacy if they ever find themselves running low and in need of a quick refill.

The amendment would expressly prohibit the Secretary from including medications for acute care needs in the mail order pilot program, as well as medications dispensed to residents of long-term care facilities. The Secretary would also have the discretion to exempt other medications and other populations.

This amendment is supported by the Military Coalition, a group of 30 organizations representing more than 5.5 million members of the uniform services--active, Reserve, retired, survivors, veterans--and their families.

My third amendment, No. 3165, which is identical to the Housing Assistance for Veterans Act that I recently introduced, would create a new pilot program at the Department of Housing and Urban Development that would provide home rehabilitation and modification for veterans who are low income or disabled and who own their homes or are living in the owner-occupied home of a family member.

This amendment fills a crucial gap because it would serve all veterans with disabilities, regardless of the severity of the disability and whether the disability is service connected or not.

With this amendment, eligible veterans would have the opportunity to renovate and modify their existing homes by installing wheelchair ramps, widening doors, re-equipping rooms, and making necessary additions and adjustments to existing structures--all so these homes are more suitable and safer for our veterans.

I hope we can work together to consider these amendments, and other amendments that have been proposed by my colleagues.

As for the underlying bill, I wish to point out a few more of its highlights.

The bill authorizes a 1.7-percent across-the-board pay raise and reauthorizes over 30 types of bonuses and special payments for our men and women in uniform.

It authorizes the Secretary of Defense to carry out a research program with community partners to enhance DOD efforts in research, treatment, education, and outreach on mental health, substance use disorders, and traumatic brain injury in Guard and Reserve members, their families, and their caregivers--a provision which I worked on with Senator Ayotte to have included in this bill. We have an incredible problem with respect to returning veterans, active-duty personnel, and their families in addressing their mental health challenges, and unless we fully engage all the resources across this country, we will not be able to successfully meet the needs of these young men and women. We hope this amendment will help in that regard.

The legislation also extends authorities to continue several ``train and equip'' programs to assist foreign militaries in counterterrorism and counternarcotics missions. This is one of the emerging and critical roles that in the future we must embrace and support.

Additionally, the legislation authorizes $5.7 billion for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund to build the capacity of the Afghan Army and police so those forces can continue to take the security lead throughout Afghanistan. Once again, this is a central foundation to our plans to withdraw the vast majority of our forces by 2014.

This year once again I had the honor of serving as the chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee, alongside Senator Wicker, my colleague from Mississippi, the ranking member. Working together, our subcommittee focused on the needs of the Navy, the Marine Corps, and strategic mobility forces. We put particular emphasis on supporting marine and naval forces engaged in combat operations, improving efficiencies, and applying the savings to higher priority programs.

Specifically, the bill includes the required funding for two Virginia-class submarines, provides multiyear procurement authority to the Navy to purchase the next block of submarines, authorizes the Navy to use incremental funding to buy an additional Virginia-class submarine in fiscal year 2014, and provides an additional $777.7 million in advance procurement for that second boat in 2014.

The bill also approves the funding for other major programs, including the DDG-1000, the Aircraft Carrier Replacement Program, the DDG-51 Aegis destroyer program, the Littoral Combat Ship, the Joint High Speed Vessel, and the P-8 maritime patrol aircraft.

I am particularly pleased about the funding for the Virginia-class submarines and the DDG-1000, which so many Rhode Islanders help to build.

We also included language that would permit the Navy to use multiyear procurement authority to buy the V-22 Osprey aircraft and the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers so we can procure these platforms as efficiently as possible.

I want to offer my particular thanks to Senator Wicker, the other members of the Seapower Subcommittee, and our staffs who have done an extraordinary job through their diligence, their dedication, and their profound commitment to the men and women, particularly, of the Navy and the Marine Corps.

We have a good bill before the Senate. I urge adoption of the amendments I have discussed, and I would urge very quickly and very timely the passage of the legislation so we can once again send the Defense authorization bill to the President for his signature.

With that, I yield the floor.

If I may simply say that I thank the chairman.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for this vote due to a flight delay caused by mechanical problems. Had I been present, I would have voted no.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Housing Assistance for Veterans Act along with my colleague Senator Johanns.

Our veterans have made many personal sacrifices in service to our nation. We must honor our commitment to provide them with the care they have earned and deserved, in both word and deed. One such way is to ensure that they have access to adequate housing.

According to Rebuilding Together, more than a quarter of all veterans, about six million, are estimated to be disabled. In my home State of Rhode Island, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are more than 19,000 veterans with disabilities, each of whom face their own unique challenges in terms of their housing needs.

The Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, has programs that assist these veterans in adapting and improving their homes. Unfortunately, these programs do not extend assistance to all veterans with disabilities. It is clear we must do more, and with this legislation, we are seeking to serve all veterans with disabilities, regardless of the severity of the disability and whether the disability is service- connected. The Housing Assistance for Veterans Act will give them the opportunity to renovate and modify their existing homes by installing wheelchair ramps, widening doors, re-equipping rooms, and making necessary additions and adjustments to existing structures, all so that these homes are both more suitable and safer for our veterans.

Our legislation encourages key stakeholders, such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the VA, housing non-profits, and veterans service organizations, to work together to serve our veterans. In order to extend the reach of this Federal funding, grant recipients would be expected to either match Federal funding or make in-kind contributions, through encouraging volunteers to help make repairs or engaging businesses to donate needed supplies.

This bill is supported by Rebuilding Together, VetsFirst, Vietnam Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Habitat for Humanity. I thank Senator Johanns for working with me on this important bill, and I look forward to working with him and the rest of our colleagues to pass this legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Housing Assistance for Veterans Act along with my colleague Senator Johanns.

Our veterans have made many personal sacrifices in service to our nation. We must honor our commitment to provide them with the care they have earned and deserved, in both word and deed. One such way is to ensure that they have access to adequate housing.

According to Rebuilding Together, more than a quarter of all veterans, about six million, are estimated to be disabled. In my home State of Rhode Island, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are more than 19,000 veterans with disabilities, each of whom face their own unique challenges in terms of their housing needs.

The Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, has programs that assist these veterans in adapting and improving their homes. Unfortunately, these programs do not extend assistance to all veterans with disabilities. It is clear we must do more, and with this legislation, we are seeking to serve all veterans with disabilities, regardless of the severity of the disability and whether the disability is service- connected. The Housing Assistance for Veterans Act will give them the opportunity to renovate and modify their existing homes by installing wheelchair ramps, widening doors, re-equipping rooms, and making necessary additions and adjustments to existing structures, all so that these homes are both more suitable and safer for our veterans.

Our legislation encourages key stakeholders, such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the VA, housing non-profits, and veterans service organizations, to work together to serve our veterans. In order to extend the reach of this Federal funding, grant recipients would be expected to either match Federal funding or make in-kind contributions, through encouraging volunteers to help make repairs or engaging businesses to donate needed supplies.

This bill is supported by Rebuilding Together, VetsFirst, Vietnam Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Habitat for Humanity. I thank Senator Johanns for working with me on this important bill, and I look forward to working with him and the rest of our colleagues to pass this legislation.

Mr. President, we know that public education lays the foundation for economic growth and the ongoing vitality of our democracy.

We also know that there is more work to be done to improve our schools. To achieve this goal, we need to focus on the professionals who have the greatest impact on student learning at school--teachers and principals.

Last year, I introduced the Effective Teaching and Leading Act to support teachers, librarians, and principals currently on the job through a comprehensive system of induction, professional development, and evaluation.

Today, I am pleased to be introducing the Educator Preparation Reform Act with Representative Honda to improve how we prepare teachers, principals, and other educators so that they can be effective right from the start.

Our legislation builds on the success of the Teacher Quality Partnership Program, which I helped author. We have added a specific focus on principals with the addition of a residency program for new principals.

Improving instruction is a team effort, with principals at the helm. This bill better connects teacher preparation with principal preparation. The Educator Preparation Reform Act will also allow partnerships to develop preparation programs for other areas of instructional need, such as for school librarians, counselors, or other academic support professionals.

The bill revamps the accountability and reporting requirements for teacher preparation programs to provide greater transparency on key quality measures such as admissions standards, requirements for clinical practice, placement of graduates, retention in the field of teaching, and teacher performance, including student learning outcomes.

All programs, whether traditional or alternative routes to certification, will report on the same measures.

Under this legislation, states will be required to identify at-risk and low performing programs and provide them with technical assistance and a timeline for improvement. Programs that are at-risk or low performing will be restricted in their ability to offer TEACH grants. States would be encouraged to close programs that do not improve.

The Educator Preparation Reform Act refocuses the state set-aside for higher education in Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act on activities to support the development and implementation of performance assessments to measure new teachers' readiness for the classroom and for technical assistance for struggling teacher preparation programs.

We have been fortunate to work with many stakeholders in developing the key provisions of this legislation. Organizations that have endorsed the Educator Preparation Reform Act include: the Alliance for Excellent Education, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, American Association of State Colleges and Universities, American Council on Education, American Psychological Association, Association of American Universities, Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, First Focus Campaign for Children, Higher Education Consortium for Special Education, Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, National Association of Elementary School Principals, National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, National Association of Secondary School Principals, National Association of State Directors of Special Education,

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, National Science Teachers Association, National School Boards Association Opportunity to Learn Action Fund, Public Education Network, Rural School and Community Trust, Silicon Valley Education Foundation, Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, The Higher Education Task Force, National Association of Elementary School Principals, and National Association of Secondary School Principals.

I look forward to working with these organizations, my colleagues, and others as I seek to include this legislation during the effort next Congress to reauthorize both the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Higher Education Act. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Mortgage Modification Outreach Act.

Despite some promising indicators in the housing market, many homeowners continue to face the threat of foreclosure. In my home state of Rhode Island, 22.6 percent of mortgages are underwater and 7.65 percent of homeowners are either in the foreclosure process or at least 90 days delinquent on their payment, a level which is higher than the national average.

I have heard from many of my constituents about the difficulties they experience when applying for loan modifications, and so the bill I am introducing focuses on providing homeowners with a face and a place where they can get more help.

First, the bill establishes a pilot program that would allow homeowners to receive information on how to reach their single point of contact by simply visiting a consumer banking branch affiliated with their mortgage servicer. Second, at the same affiliated bank branch, the homeowner can receive the address of a nearby location at which the homeowner can, at no cost in some cases, copy, fax, scan, or send all the paperwork that is required during the loan modification process. Simply put, my bill would enable a borrower to walk into the local bank branch affiliated with their mortgage servicer and get some face to face help.

This pilot program is designed to bridge the gap that has arisen as struggling homeowners have sought--unsuccessfully in too many instances--to get easy answers to basic questions from their mortgage servicer as they navigate the loan modification process. Homeowners looking for assistance should neither have to jump through countless hoops nor be given the runaround. They should be treated like customers.

There is no single solution that will help us gain traction in the housing market. However, along with my other efforts, such as S. 489, the Preserving Homes and Communities Act, S. 2162, the Project Rebuild Act, and my efforts to convert vacant foreclosed homes into rental properties, this legislation represents another commonsense approach to helping homeowners stay in their homes, reducing foreclosures, and healing the housing market.

This bill is supported by the National Consumer Law Center and the National Association of Realtors. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation.