Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, on February 25, 1812, by an act of the Rhode Island General Assembly, the Rhode Island Medical Society was chartered. In short order, physicians in the State adopted bylaws and elected officers, becoming the eighth State medical society in the Nation. Over the past 200 years, the Rhode Island Medical Society has worked to fulfill its founding principle to consistently improve patient care. That principle is reflected in its many accomplishments in the field of public health.

By 1852, just 40 years later, Rhode Island became the fourth State to collect, analyze, and publish birth, marriage, and death statistics on an annual basis. Soon after, it began distributing clinical papers of peers regarding public health trends and treatments. These early actions reflect a keen understanding of disease prevention and health promotion, as well as the collaborative nature of medicine.

Since these early years, the Rhode Island Medical Society has advanced public health efforts that run the gamut from sanitation to vaccination. It was the second in the country to admit a female doctor. It also has played a role in the development of national health care policy, such as mental health parity, an effort to achieve fairness in the treatment of mental illness, which was fully realized in 2008 when the Mental Health Parity and Addition Equity Act was signed into law.

For all these reasons, and many more, I am pleased to add my voice to those commemorating the Bicentennial of the Rhode Island Medical Society and congratulate its members, Rhode Island physicians, physician assistants, and future physicians for their important work to improve the health and lives of Rhode Islanders.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, first, let me express my disappointment that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle blocked consideration of vitally important cyber security legislation. The Secretary of Defense, when asked about a potential threat to the United States, declares emphatically that his biggest concern is that the next Pearl Harbor will be a cyber attack upon the United States and if we cannot at least fully debate, amend the bill, and pass the bill, then I think we are not performing up to the expectations of the American people.

So I am very disappointed that we were not able to complete this legislation in a timely fashion this week and give the necessary tools to our national leadership to protect the country against potential cyber threats.

Federal Housing Finance Agency

Having said that, I also want to rise today to express my profound disappointment in the Federal Housing Finance Agency's decision to prohibit the use of principal reduction by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as one more tool to avoid foreclosure under the HAMP Principal Reduction Alternative (PRA).

As conservator, the acting FHFA Director, Mr. DeMarco, has a duty to not only carry on the business of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but also to preserve and conserve the assets of both, which FHFA has stated repeatedly requires them to minimize losses. At the same time he has other statutory responsibilities. Under section 110 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, there is a requirement that FHFA ``implement a plan that seeks to maximize assistance for homeowners and use its authority to encourage the servicers of the underlying mortgages, and considering net present value to the taxpayer, to take advantage of . . . available programs to minimize foreclosures.''

So there is a clear statutory direction to do all that he can to minimize foreclosures while he is also balancing the portfolio and minimizing losses to Fannie and Freddie.

To boil all of this down, FHFA has to minimize Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae losses, and pursuant to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which passed this Chamber on a strong bipartisan vote of 74 to 25, this requirement to protect homes from foreclosure or the people from the threat of foreclosure is a strong bipartisan objective. FHFA was directed by Congress to throw its weight in favor of avoiding foreclosures, especially in those instances in which a policy decision may be a close call. I believe that is the plain meaning of ``maximize assistance'' to ``minimize foreclosures.'' Maximize assistance--not provide assistance but to maximize assistance to avoid foreclosure. I would further note that section 110 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act explicitly permits ``reduction of loan principal.''

So we consciously gave the Acting FHFA Director the specific tool of principal reduction and the specific directive to maximize assistance to minimize foreclosure. We did that in the context of the overall mission to try to minimize losses of the Fannie and Freddie portfolio. But to turn essentially a blind eye to the thousands of Americans who are facing foreclosure is to ignore a vital responsibility and a vital authority which he has been given.

After reading FHFA's July 31, 2012, letter to Members of Congress, my impression is that FHFA has done exactly the opposite of what we have asked them to do. Indeed, the letter contradicts itself in arriving at its conclusion. FHFA states in one part of the letter that it will not allow principal reductions under the PRA program. But in another part of the letter, FHFA goes on to write,

Short sales and deeds-in-lieu, which the Enterprises offer,

result in principal forgiveness as part of exiting the house.

In other words, it seems, in their view, principal reduction is acceptable in some cases, especially if the owners leave their home.

Now, I think there are thousands of Americans who are facing huge challenges to stay in their homes. It is ironic that FHFA will reduce the principal, only after the person actually loses their home. But if it, through PRA, allows a person to keep their home, and avoid foreclosure, then FHFA will not do it.

In the same letter FHFA also states that:

Forgiving debt owed pursuant to a lawful, valid contract

risks creating a longer-term view by investors that the

mortgage contract is less secure than ever before. Longer-

term, this view could lead to higher mortgage rates, a

constriction in mortgage credit lending or both, outcomes

that would be inconsistent with FHFA's mandate to promote

stability and liquidity in mortgage markets and access to

mortgage credit.

So forgiving debt is inconsistent with FHFA's mandate, but FHFA admits to allowing principal forgiveness in certain cases? Again, let me repeat their own words.

Short sales and deeds-in-lieu, which the Enterprises offer,

result in principal forgiveness as part of exiting the house.

But FHFA also states:

Forgiving debt owed pursuant to a lawful, valid contract

risks creating a longer-term view by investors that the

mortgage contract is less secure than ever before.

Well, how does this make any real common sense? We will forgive principal if homeowners are going to get kicked out of their house, which presumably upsets the long-term perspective of investors and bonds that support those mortgages. But if homeowners are staying in their house, we will not reduce principal through PRA.

Turning to the point of moral hazard, which is implicit in all that has been discussed by FHFA, and given that FHFA has blessed principal forgiveness in these two instances of short sales and deeds-in-lieu, and additionally permits principal reduction as part of the Hardest Hit Fund, which also utilizes Treasury incentives, I can only assume that FHFA must have found a way to control and avoid moral hazard when they want to and use moral hazard as an excuse when they don't want to do something.

Either it is an issue that must be consistently addressed, which they don't do, or it is an after-the-fact rationalization for failure to pursue a policy which for other reasons they don't want to do.

Having made these points, let me give FHFA the benefit of the doubt here and assume for the sake of argument that FHFA wants greater certainty and assurances. I think they said as much when they wrote:

FHFA weighed these potential benefits and costs,

recognizing the inherent uncertainties associated with these

estimates, and concluded that the potential benefit was too

small and uncertain relative to known and unknown costs and

risks to warrant the dedication of additional taxpayer

resources to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to implement HAMP

Mr. President, today I introduce the Family Self- Sufficiency Act.

The Family Self Sufficiency, FSS, program is an existing employment and savings incentive initiative for families that have section 8 vouchers or live in public housing. The FSS program provides two key tools for its participants: first, it provides access to the resources and training that help participants pursue employment opportunities and meet financial goals, and second, it encourages FSS families to save by establishing an interest-bearing escrow account for them. Upon graduation from the FSS program, the family can use these savings to pay for job-related expenses, such as the purchase or maintenance of a car or for additional workforce training.

My legislation seeks to enhance the FSS program by streamlining the administration of this program, by broadening the supportive services that can be provided to a participant, and by extending the FSS program to tenants who live in privately-owned properties with project-based assistance.

First, to streamline the FSS program, my bill would combine the two separate FSS programs into one. Currently, HUD operates one FSS program for those families being served by the Housing Choice Voucher Program and another for those families being served by the Public Housing program, even though the core purpose of each FSS program, to increase economic independence and self-sufficiency, is the same for both. As a result, Public Housing Agencies, PHAs, have to operate essentially two programs to achieve the same goal. With my bill, PHAs would be relieved of this unnecessary burden.

Second, my legislation broadens the scope of the supportive services that may be offered to include attainment

of a GED, education in pursuit of a post-secondary degree or certification, and training in financial literacy. Providing families in need with affordable rental housing is critical, but coupling it with the support and services to help families get ahead is more effective. This legislation makes it easier for FSS participants to obtain the training necessary to secure employment and the education to make prudent financial decisions to better safeguard their earnings.

Lastly, this bill opens up the FSS program to families who live in privately-owned properties subsidized with project-based rental assistance. It shouldn't matter what kind of housing assistance a family gets, and families seeking to achieve self-sufficiency shouldn't be held back by this sort of technicality.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, which will help give those receiving housing assistance a better chance to build their skills and achieve economic independence.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Family Self- Sufficiency Act.

The Family Self Sufficiency, FSS, program is an existing employment and savings incentive initiative for families that have section 8 vouchers or live in public housing. The FSS program provides two key tools for its participants: first, it provides access to the resources and training that help participants pursue employment opportunities and meet financial goals, and second, it encourages FSS families to save by establishing an interest-bearing escrow account for them. Upon graduation from the FSS program, the family can use these savings to pay for job-related expenses, such as the purchase or maintenance of a car or for additional workforce training.

My legislation seeks to enhance the FSS program by streamlining the administration of this program, by broadening the supportive services that can be provided to a participant, and by extending the FSS program to tenants who live in privately-owned properties with project-based assistance.

First, to streamline the FSS program, my bill would combine the two separate FSS programs into one. Currently, HUD operates one FSS program for those families being served by the Housing Choice Voucher Program and another for those families being served by the Public Housing program, even though the core purpose of each FSS program, to increase economic independence and self-sufficiency, is the same for both. As a result, Public Housing Agencies, PHAs, have to operate essentially two programs to achieve the same goal. With my bill, PHAs would be relieved of this unnecessary burden.

Second, my legislation broadens the scope of the supportive services that may be offered to include attainment

of a GED, education in pursuit of a post-secondary degree or certification, and training in financial literacy. Providing families in need with affordable rental housing is critical, but coupling it with the support and services to help families get ahead is more effective. This legislation makes it easier for FSS participants to obtain the training necessary to secure employment and the education to make prudent financial decisions to better safeguard their earnings.

Lastly, this bill opens up the FSS program to families who live in privately-owned properties subsidized with project-based rental assistance. It shouldn't matter what kind of housing assistance a family gets, and families seeking to achieve self-sufficiency shouldn't be held back by this sort of technicality.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, which will help give those receiving housing assistance a better chance to build their skills and achieve economic independence.

Mr. President, today I congratulate Olivia Culpo of my own hometown, Cranston, RI, for being crowned Miss USA on June 3, 2012, in Las Vegas, NV. She is the first titleholder from our State.

A native Rhode Islander, Olivia attended St. Mary Academy-Bay View and graduated with high honors. She is currently a sophomore at Boston University and has been on the dean's list every semester. Olivia is also an accomplished cellist who has performed with the Rhode Island Philharmonic Pops Orchestra, the Boston Symphony Orchestra, the Rhode Island Philharmonic Youth Orchestra, the Rhode Island Philharmonic Chamber Ensemble, the Bay View Orchestra, and the Rhode Island All- State Orchestra.

I had the pleasure of meeting Olivia recently when she came to Capitol Hill to passionately advocate for ovarian cancer prevention. Olivia is an impressive and intelligent young woman, and I appreciated the opportunity to discuss this and other issues with her.

Rhode Island is very proud that such a talented young woman is representing our State. We look forward to continuing to see Olivia serve as a positive role model both during and beyond her reign as Miss USA, and wish her the best of luck when she represents the United States at the Miss Universe pageant in December. Once again, I offer my sincerest congratulations to Olivia Culpo for being the first Rhode Islander to be crowned Miss USA.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, before I begin my remarks with respect to the current debate, let me pay tribute to Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective John M. Gibson of the Capitol Police, and to all of the Capitol Police officers, men and women who protect us each day.

I was here on that somber day when these gentlemen sacrificed their lives to protect innocent people in this building. Their example continues to sustain us and inspire us. They continue to sustain and inspire the Capitol Police officers who today are protecting us. We thank them all.

As my colleague from West Virginia commented, we are in the midst of a very serious debate with huge consequences for our country, our economy, our future. That is why I rise today in support of the Middle Class Tax Cut Act. This bill will extend the 2001, 2003, and 2009 tax cuts for the middle class through 2013. It will provide tax relief to every American, especially to those families who have struggled through this recession and this weak recovery, and restore some fairness to the Tax Code by letting the top marginal tax rates return to the Clinton- era levels.

If we do not extend these tax cuts for the middle class, the typical Rhode Island family of four could see their taxes raised by an average of $2,200 in 2013. This is not fair to middle-income Rhode Islanders, middle-income Americans.

Unfortunately, I fear many, if not all, of my Republican colleagues will block this bill because it does not extend additional tax cuts for taxpayers who make over a quarter of a million dollars. Instead, they will continue to press for a proposal that doubles down on the failed economic policies of the Bush era for a plan that gives more tax cuts to the wealthy, while eliminating middle-class tax breaks for families with children. Indeed, one of the astounding things about the Republican proposal is it will, if you look closely, actually increase the tax burden on middle-income Americans.

In contrast, the bill Democrats propose will benefit every single taxpayer in America. It is only when someone exceeds a quarter of a million dollars in income that their income in excess of the quarter of a million dollar threshold will be subject to the top two Clinton-era rates.

The Democratic plan will extend tax cuts for the vast majority of Americans. Only the top 2 percent of earners, approximately 2.1 million out of more than 100 million households, households that have disproportionately benefited from the Bush tax cuts for more than a decade, will see their top rates revert to Clinton era levels. They will get to maintain their benefits up to $250,000, but after that, they will see an increase. This is the nature of our progressive tax system, one which for generations has spread the burden across income levels, making sure that middle-income Americans do not shoulder a disproportionate burden of the taxes that support this government.

One of the key facts we have observed, now for more than a decade, is that these Bush tax cuts have been very costly. They have been a primary driver of this deficit, in addition to unpaid conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq and a prescription drug program that was not paid for.

At least with this proposal, we are beginning to try to reverse that trend in a principled way. The wealthiest, those who enjoy the greatest economic privilege in the country should shoulder some of the responsibility, and should shoulder some of the effort in order to help us begin to repair the deficit, which has grown as a result of these massively costly and ineffective tax breaks the wealthiest have enjoyed since 2001.

The Democratic bill will cost the Federal Government $249 billion in lost revenue for a 1-year extension. The Republican bill will cost $405 billion. So, again, if you are talking about trying to get a handle on the deficit, compare a bill for $249 billion, which is expensive but significantly less than $405 billion Republican plan that would do virtually nothing to restore fairness to our tax code or create jobs. I do not think our Nation can afford this $405 billion Republican alternative. There has been a promise or a mantra that has been offered over the last decade that these Republican tax cuts create jobs, and that they would contribute to our prosperity. But what we have seen,

particularly over the 8 years of the Bush administration, is that these tax cuts for the wealthy did not create jobs. I believe the evidence we have shows that there is very little correlation between these tax cuts for the wealthy and job creation or economic prosperity.

Additionally, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans constrain our ability to pursue policies that will boost growth in the near-term.

Indeed, if we do not have the resources to invest in the country, in our infrastructure, in our education, in the health of our people, we will not have the economic dynamism needed to be competitive and give our children the future they deserve. Frankly, like the future our parents gave to us. A future that previous generations were able to provide for because of Federal tax policies which were fairer, which were more progressive, and which allowed for significant investment and job growth.

In my State, with a 10.9-percent unemployment rate and a national unemployment rate above 8 percent, it is imperative that we embrace fiscal policy that creates jobs in the short-term but also recognizes the need for long-term deficit reduction.

Democrats have offered plan after plan that would preserve and create jobs in a fair and fiscally responsible manner. We press for policies that will provide more of an economic bang for the buck, policies such as the continuation of unemployment benefits and policies that provide relief to middle-class households. What we have to do is go forward, support this effort, begin the hard and difficult task of not only continuing to support middle-income families but begin to address the issue of long-term deficit reduction.

I hope my colleagues do not block this effort. I hope my colleagues do not once again decide that doing nothing is a viable alternative to helping middle-income Americans and helping our economy overall. Unfortunately, they have done that in the past. Earlier this month, the Republicans blocked a bill that cut taxes for small businesses that hired new workers. The bill was estimated to create 1 million jobs nationally and could have created about 3,500 jobs in my State, but Republicans filibustered.

Just last week, the Republicans blocked a bill that would have given tax cuts to businesses that brought jobs to the United States and closed tax loopholes for companies that send jobs overseas. Republicans blocked that also. I believe the record is clear. Democrats have been trying week in and week out to create jobs here at home, to make our tax system fairer, to give middle-income families a break, and to do so in a fiscally responsible manner. The vote on the Middle Class Tax Cut Act will be upon us shortly. I hope it will be a vote on which we prevail and go forward together and provide tax relief to middle-class Americans. I think it will be a first step toward the larger issues that were alluded to by my colleague from West Virginia dealing with the potential of sequestration at the end of this year, advancing policies that will grow our economy while beginning to restrain our deficit and provide a more stable, more sustainable economic environment for all Americans.

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

Today I am introducing bipartisan legislation to address a matter that I explored as chairman of the Banking Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment. During a series of hearings, it became increasingly clear to me that in order to protect taxpayers and investors, we need tougher anti-fraud laws and better oversight of Wall Street. Some of these institutions that are ``too big to fail'' have also become ``too big to care.'' We need to end the cycle of misconduct where such institutions can look at the bottom line and see they can break the law, get caught, pay a nominal fine, and still profit.

At a Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, oversight hearing I held in November 2011, I asked Robert Khuzami, director of the Division of Enforcement at the SEC, why a recently proposed settlement with Citigroup had been thrown out by a Federal judge in the Southern District of New York, who believed it to be egregiously low. Mr. Khuzami replied that the SEC's ability to assess penalties was actually limited by the statute. In follow-up questions, I directly asked if Congress should consider raising these limits, especially in cases involving repeated offenders. I subsequently received a letter from SEC Chairman Schapiro, and written answers from Mr. Khuzami, supporting the need to raise the limits and make other improvements to the SEC civil enforcement statute.

As a result, I am introducing today with my colleague, Senator Chuck Grassley, the Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act of 2012 or the SEC Penalties Act. This bill will strengthen the ability of the SEC to crack down on violations of securities laws by updating its civil penalties statute. This legislation will ensure that the punishment better fits the crime by increasing the statutory limits on civil monetary penalties, directly linking the size of these penalties to the scope of harm and associated investor losses, and substantially raising the financial stakes for repeat offenders of our nation's securities laws.

Our bill will increase the per violation cap for the most egregious securities laws violations to $1 million per offense for individuals and $10 million per offense for entities. This will help ensure that the SEC's most severe, or ``tier three,'' penalties will help deter people from engaging in the most serious offenses, rather than have such wrongdoing be viewed as just the cost of doing business. Under existing law, the SEC can only penalize individual securities law violators a maximum of $150,000 per offense and institutions $725,000 per offense.

Our bill will also toughen penalties by allowing penalties equal to three times the economic gain of the violator. It also provides a new calculation method that includes the amount of associated investor losses as part of the penalty determination. This should allow the SEC to address situations where the actual economic gain to the violator is relatively small compared to the extent of the wrongdoing or the harm caused to investors.

In the recent case involving Citigroup, existing law did not even entitle the SEC to recover the amount actually lost by investors. Estimated investors losses were about $700 million, but the SEC proposed to settle the case with Citigroup for only $285 million. This amount was what was estimated to be close to the total monetary recovery that the SEC itself could have obtained if it had gone to trial. Under our bill, this amount could have been much larger, and would have taken into account the economic gain to Citigroup, in addition to investor losses.

Recent reports have highlighted the level of repeat offenses that have occurred on Wall Street and gone unchecked. The SEC Penalties Act includes two statutory changes that would substantially improve the ability of the SEC's enforcement program to ratchet up penalties as recidivism occurs.

One would allow the SEC to triple the applicable penalty cap for recidivists who, within the preceding five years, have been criminally convicted of securities fraud or been the subject of a judgment or order imposing monetary, equitable, or administrative relief in any action alleging SEC fraud.

The other would allow the SEC to seek a civil penalty if an individual or entity has violated an existing federal court injunction or bar imposed by the SEC. Many believe this approach would be more efficient, effective, and flexible than the current civil contempt remedy.

Finally, under the SEC Penalties Act, the penalty relief available in administrative proceedings will be the same as it is in district court. In essence, the SEC will be able to assess these types of penalties in- house, and not just obtain them in federal court.

Given the JP Morgan trading scandal, issues arising from the Facebook IPO, and the manipulation of LIBOR, it

is clear much still needs to be done to improve transparency and restore confidence in our financial system. The nearly one-half of all U.S. households that own securities deserve a strong cop on the beat that has the tools it needs to go after fraudsters and the difficult cases arising from our increasingly complex financial markets. Our economy's success depends in no small part on restoring confidence in our capital markets.

The SEC Penalties Act will help by giving the SEC more tools to demand meaningful accountability from Wall Street. It will enhance the SEC's ability to protect investors and crack down on fraud and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and join us in supporting this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with my colleagues from Rhode Island and Connecticut, Senators Whitehouse and Lieberman, legislation to authorize the National Park Service to study specific sections of the Beaver, Chipuxet, Queen, Wood, and Pawcatuck Rivers in Rhode Island and Connecticut for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Our legislation seeks to bring greater attention to and resources for efforts to protect and restore the health of these rivers through the evaluation of their recreational, natural, and historical qualities and whether they are suitable for designation as Wild and Scenic Rivers.

The recreational and scenic wealth of the Wood-Pawcatuck watershed is a natural treasure. The National Park Service's Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance program conducted a planning and conservation study in the 1980s which concluded, in part, that the waters of the Wood and Pawcatuck Rivers corridor in Rhode Island ``are the cleanest and purest and its recreational opportunities are unparalleled by any other river system in the state.''

These rivers also provide opportunities for outdoor recreation and tourism that contribute to the local economy. Not only do its rivers provide easy access to the wilderness for family outings and school field trips, but they also offer ways to explore our heritage throughout the watershed, from Native American fishing grounds to Colonial and early industrial mill ruins. The rivers also provide opportunities for trout fishing, canoeing, bird watching, and hiking.

I have long supported the protection and restoration of Southern New England's watersheds and estuaries, including the Narragansett Bay, and this study is an important first step in determining future opportunities for protection and recreational enjoyment of the rivers in the Wood-Pawcatuck watershed. Our states have been excellent stewards of these rivers, and this study would enhance existing local and State efforts to preserve and manage this open space and its wildlife habitat.

Indeed, partnerships are key to broad restoration and management of our resources, and it is expected that this study would be conducted in close cooperation with the affected communities, state agencies, local governments, and other interested organizations. The partnership-based approach also allows for development of a proposed river management plan as part of the study, which could address issues ranging from fish passage to the restoration of wetlands to assist with flood mitigation, as well as balance the

recreational opportunities that contribute to the local economies with preservation of the natural resources.

This is a two State initiative that will encompass both Rhode Island and Connecticut, and will help protect these resources for future generations to enjoy.

I commend Representatives Langevin and Courtney for spearheading this effort in the other body, and I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to initiate the process to study the rivers of the Wood- Pawcatuck Watershed for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Today I am introducing bipartisan legislation to address a matter that I explored as chairman of the Banking Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment. During a series of hearings, it became increasingly clear to me that in order to protect taxpayers and investors, we need tougher anti-fraud laws and better oversight of Wall Street. Some of these institutions that are ``too big to fail'' have also become ``too big to care.'' We need to end the cycle of misconduct where such institutions can look at the bottom line and see they can break the law, get caught, pay a nominal fine, and still profit.

At a Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, oversight hearing I held in November 2011, I asked Robert Khuzami, director of the Division of Enforcement at the SEC, why a recently proposed settlement with Citigroup had been thrown out by a Federal judge in the Southern District of New York, who believed it to be egregiously low. Mr. Khuzami replied that the SEC's ability to assess penalties was actually limited by the statute. In follow-up questions, I directly asked if Congress should consider raising these limits, especially in cases involving repeated offenders. I subsequently received a letter from SEC Chairman Schapiro, and written answers from Mr. Khuzami, supporting the need to raise the limits and make other improvements to the SEC civil enforcement statute.

As a result, I am introducing today with my colleague, Senator Chuck Grassley, the Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act of 2012 or the SEC Penalties Act. This bill will strengthen the ability of the SEC to crack down on violations of securities laws by updating its civil penalties statute. This legislation will ensure that the punishment better fits the crime by increasing the statutory limits on civil monetary penalties, directly linking the size of these penalties to the scope of harm and associated investor losses, and substantially raising the financial stakes for repeat offenders of our nation's securities laws.

Our bill will increase the per violation cap for the most egregious securities laws violations to $1 million per offense for individuals and $10 million per offense for entities. This will help ensure that the SEC's most severe, or ``tier three,'' penalties will help deter people from engaging in the most serious offenses, rather than have such wrongdoing be viewed as just the cost of doing business. Under existing law, the SEC can only penalize individual securities law violators a maximum of $150,000 per offense and institutions $725,000 per offense.

Our bill will also toughen penalties by allowing penalties equal to three times the economic gain of the violator. It also provides a new calculation method that includes the amount of associated investor losses as part of the penalty determination. This should allow the SEC to address situations where the actual economic gain to the violator is relatively small compared to the extent of the wrongdoing or the harm caused to investors.

In the recent case involving Citigroup, existing law did not even entitle the SEC to recover the amount actually lost by investors. Estimated investors losses were about $700 million, but the SEC proposed to settle the case with Citigroup for only $285 million. This amount was what was estimated to be close to the total monetary recovery that the SEC itself could have obtained if it had gone to trial. Under our bill, this amount could have been much larger, and would have taken into account the economic gain to Citigroup, in addition to investor losses.

Recent reports have highlighted the level of repeat offenses that have occurred on Wall Street and gone unchecked. The SEC Penalties Act includes two statutory changes that would substantially improve the ability of the SEC's enforcement program to ratchet up penalties as recidivism occurs.

One would allow the SEC to triple the applicable penalty cap for recidivists who, within the preceding five years, have been criminally convicted of securities fraud or been the subject of a judgment or order imposing monetary, equitable, or administrative relief in any action alleging SEC fraud.

The other would allow the SEC to seek a civil penalty if an individual or entity has violated an existing federal court injunction or bar imposed by the SEC. Many believe this approach would be more efficient, effective, and flexible than the current civil contempt remedy.

Finally, under the SEC Penalties Act, the penalty relief available in administrative proceedings will be the same as it is in district court. In essence, the SEC will be able to assess these types of penalties in- house, and not just obtain them in federal court.

Given the JP Morgan trading scandal, issues arising from the Facebook IPO, and the manipulation of LIBOR, it

is clear much still needs to be done to improve transparency and restore confidence in our financial system. The nearly one-half of all U.S. households that own securities deserve a strong cop on the beat that has the tools it needs to go after fraudsters and the difficult cases arising from our increasingly complex financial markets. Our economy's success depends in no small part on restoring confidence in our capital markets.

The SEC Penalties Act will help by giving the SEC more tools to demand meaningful accountability from Wall Street. It will enhance the SEC's ability to protect investors and crack down on fraud and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and join us in supporting this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with my colleagues from Rhode Island and Connecticut, Senators Whitehouse and Lieberman, legislation to authorize the National Park Service to study specific sections of the Beaver, Chipuxet, Queen, Wood, and Pawcatuck Rivers in Rhode Island and Connecticut for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Our legislation seeks to bring greater attention to and resources for efforts to protect and restore the health of these rivers through the evaluation of their recreational, natural, and historical qualities and whether they are suitable for designation as Wild and Scenic Rivers.

The recreational and scenic wealth of the Wood-Pawcatuck watershed is a natural treasure. The National Park Service's Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance program conducted a planning and conservation study in the 1980s which concluded, in part, that the waters of the Wood and Pawcatuck Rivers corridor in Rhode Island ``are the cleanest and purest and its recreational opportunities are unparalleled by any other river system in the state.''

These rivers also provide opportunities for outdoor recreation and tourism that contribute to the local economy. Not only do its rivers provide easy access to the wilderness for family outings and school field trips, but they also offer ways to explore our heritage throughout the watershed, from Native American fishing grounds to Colonial and early industrial mill ruins. The rivers also provide opportunities for trout fishing, canoeing, bird watching, and hiking.

I have long supported the protection and restoration of Southern New England's watersheds and estuaries, including the Narragansett Bay, and this study is an important first step in determining future opportunities for protection and recreational enjoyment of the rivers in the Wood-Pawcatuck watershed. Our states have been excellent stewards of these rivers, and this study would enhance existing local and State efforts to preserve and manage this open space and its wildlife habitat.

Indeed, partnerships are key to broad restoration and management of our resources, and it is expected that this study would be conducted in close cooperation with the affected communities, state agencies, local governments, and other interested organizations. The partnership-based approach also allows for development of a proposed river management plan as part of the study, which could address issues ranging from fish passage to the restoration of wetlands to assist with flood mitigation, as well as balance the

recreational opportunities that contribute to the local economies with preservation of the natural resources.

This is a two State initiative that will encompass both Rhode Island and Connecticut, and will help protect these resources for future generations to enjoy.

I commend Representatives Langevin and Courtney for spearheading this effort in the other body, and I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to initiate the process to study the rivers of the Wood- Pawcatuck Watershed for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Mr. President, twenty years ago, Brown University, located in my home State of Rhode Island, 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 University and its partner institutions have continued to address this pressing national need.

The National Research Council recently published a report titled ``Research Universities and the Future of America'' that included a call for ten ``breakthrough actions.'' Two of these actions involve reforming graduate education and creating pathways into the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) for women and underrepresented minorities. That is what the Leadership Alliance has been striving to do since 1992.

Through an organized program of research, networking and mentorship at critical transitions along the entire academic training pathway, the Leadership Alliance prepares young scientists and scholars from underrepresented and underserved populations for graduate training and professional apprenticeships. Leadership Alliance faculty mentors provide high quality, cutting-edge research experiences in all academic disciplines at the Nation's most competitive graduate training institutions and share insights into the nature of academic careers.

In the 20 years since its establishment, the Leadership Alliance has established a strong track record of success. More than half of the students who participated in the Summer Research Early Identification program enrolled in a graduate level program. Leadership Alliance institutions graduated approximately 25 percent of all doctorates in the biomedical sciences degrees to underrepresented minority students between 2004 and 2008, making it a leading consortium grantor of PhD degrees in the biomedical sciences in the United States.

Since founding the Leadership Alliance in 1992, Brown has mentored 386 scholars, of whom 35 percent have attained a graduate level degree. Nearly half of the students who participated in its Summer Research Early Identification program completed a graduate level degree. A majority of the Leadership Alliance doctoral degree recipients are in the STEM disciplines.

The Leadership Alliance is a model for identifying, training, and mentoring underrepresented minorities who are poised to expand and diversify the base of the 21st century workforce. I am pleased today to recognize the importance of such efforts and acknowledge the continued dedication of institutional leaders, faculty members, and administrators across the United States who provide training and mentoring of underrepresented students along the academic pathway. As such, I congratulate and commend the Leadership Alliance, including Brown University, for 20 years of contributing to creating a diverse and competitive research and scholarly workforce.

Mr. CASEY: Mr. President, today I would like to acknowledge the great work of the Leadership Alliance during its 20th anniversary. The Leadership Alliance is a consortium of 32 leading colleges and universities that aims to train, mentor and inspire a diverse group of students from a wide range of backgrounds to enter competitive graduate programs and research careers. This admirable goal of expanding access to high-quality programs is supported by the consortium's shared resources and vision.

I would especially like to acknowledge the program at the University of Pennsylvania, which is one of the

Leadership Alliance founding members and the only member in Pennsylvania. According to the university, the Leadership Alliance complements Penn's broader strategic vision of increasing diversity within its graduate student body and faculty. As it seeks to prepare leaders and role models for service in academia and the private and public sectors, the Leadership Alliance disseminates best practices in recruitment, mentoring and career development. With 20 years of experience in developing and sharing these essential techniques, the Leadership Alliance has helped to provide the Nation with a more diverse and globally competitive workforce. I wish to congratulate the Leadership Alliance on its 20th anniversary and thank its leaders and scholars for their significant contributions.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in supporting the DISCLOSE Act.

I commend Senator Blumenthal for his extraordinarily insightful and articulate words with respect to this critical issue. I particularly wish to commend the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Whitehouse. He has been the driving force to bring this issue to the floor, to educate all of us in the Senate and the American people about what is at stake, and in many respects, it is our democracy. It is the presumption that every American has their vote count just as much as anybody else's vote, that elections are decided based upon issues and ideas and not by the sheer volume and the sheer magnitude of 30-second advertisements that are designed more to divert than to inform, designed more to excite than to inform. Most people believe in a system that is based on thoughtful consideration of ideas and issues and in a system in which everyone's vote counts.

Senator Whitehouse is an extraordinarily gifted attorney. He understands these issues perhaps as well as anyone in this body. He was a Federal attorney and our state's attorney general, and he has brought not just knowledge of the Constitution but this passion for justice and fairness and decency and democracy to the forefront of our debate today, and this will not be the last day we will be debating this issue. So let me begin by commending his efforts.

A fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution is the right to vote. Each citizens gets one vote, and this right represents a critical pillar of our democracy because we treat everyone equally, allowing each citizen to have this crucial and critical say in who governs, on the issues, and ultimately what is the course of this great country.

But because of the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, I worry that our political and civic conversations now advantage those who flood our airwaves, papers, and Web sites by talking--if not shouting-- louder simply because they have more money and resources to do so.

The New York Times recently included the following in an article, giving us one indication of how much money is awash in our political system, and it reflects what my colleague from Connecticut said.

During the 2010 midterm elections, tax-exempt groups

outspent PACs by a 3-2 margin, according to a recent study by

the Center for Responsive Politics and the Center for Public

Integrity, with most of that money devoted to attacking

Democrats or defending Republicans. And such groups have

accounted for two-thirds of the political advertising bought

by the biggest outside spenders so far in the 2012 election

cycle, according to Kantar Media's Campaign Media Analysis

Group, with close to $100 million in issue ads.

And the clock is still ticking and the amount is accumulating.

That electioneering in the shadows is not what most Americans want. They want robust debate. They want candidates to engage as candidates, not the witting or unwitting beneficiaries or victims of anonymous advertisements in their race.

This is not, I believe, what the creators of the Constitution thought would happen or hoped would happen. They envisioned a country in which the best ideas and the best arguments prevailed regardless of how loudly one spoke; that it was the quality of the argument, not the volume of the speaker, that mattered.

What should be important is this quality of speech, not the quantity, and, frankly, there is a direct correlation between the amount of money you have today and the quantity of your speech in the media. That is just the reality of paid advertisement, which dominates political campaigns.

But I think this vision, because of Citizens United, has been turned on its head. Now those with the greatest resources, the most money, have been given a disproportionate advantage.

By allowing corporations and unions to unleash the full power of their treasury funds and explicitly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates in Federal or State elections in the name of protecting and promoting free speech, I think the Supreme Court missed the mark. It missed the mark about the centrality of an individual's vote and the substance of a campaign being about ideas, not about derogatory advertising, not about anything else except the issues. That is the ideal. That is what our Founding Fathers were hoping for and, indeed, I think expecting, and I think that has been terribly distorted by this opinion.

There is an interesting situation going on here. In the attempt to create, under Citizens United, what the Supreme Court, I expect, was hoping to do--create an atmosphere in which speech is free--they created a situation in which speech is no longer free. Effective speech is no longer free; it actually comes with a very high cost and goes to the person who is the highest bidder. That is not free speech, not effective free speech; it is purchased speech. And if our elections are going to be decided not by free speech but by purchased speech, they will be won always by the highest bidder, by the person with the biggest wallet, the person who is willing to spend as much as necessary to prevail. And it will raise and it does raise the specter of, is this about the future of the country or is this about the narrow self- interest of someone who is willing to invest a great deal of money into a particular race? And I think most people would conclude that it is probably about the narrow self-interests of someone who invests a great deal of money in a race.

Simply put, I think Citizens United is deeply flawed, and more than one expert has voiced their frustration and disappointment with this decision.

Shortly after the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Citizens United in 2010, Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, which is a center-right--more right than center, perhaps--organization, wrote, in a column in Roll Call called ``Court Way Oversteps its Authority With the Citizens United Case,'' these words:

I hoped Citizens United would be decided narrowly but

feared that the court would take a meat ax to a century of

settled law and policy. My worst fears were realized.

This decision equates corporations, which have one goal, to

make money, with individual citizens, who have many goals and

motives in their lives, including making a better society,

protecting their children and grandchildren and future

generations, and so on . . .

This was a case never raised by the plaintiffs and never

formally brought before the Roberts Court. We do not have an

instance where an actual for-profit corporation has

complained that it has been barred from its ability to get

its message across in the political process. The cases

overturned and the laws struck down were considered carefully

by judges and Congresses past, including in the McConnell

decision barely six years ago. Only one thing has changed

since--the political and ideological complexion of the

Supreme Court brought on in particular by the retirement of

Sandra Day O'Connor.

Additionally, Richard Posner, a respected Conservative Judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, who was appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan, recently stated the following on his blog:

[T]he Court, rather naively as it seems to most observers,

reasoned in the Citizens United case that the risk of

corruption would be slight if the donor was not contributing

to a candidate or a political party, but merely expressing

his political preferences through an independent organization

such as a super PAC--an organization neither controlled by

nor even coordinating with a candidate or political party. .

. .

It thus is difficult to see what practical difference there

is between super PAC donations and direct campaign donations,

from a corruption standpoint. A super PAC is a valuable

weapon for a campaign, as the heavy expenditures of Restore

Our Future, the large super PAC that supports Romney and has

attacked his opponents, proves; the donors to it are known;

and it is unclear why they should expect less quid pro quo

from their favored candidate if he's successful than a direct

donor to the candidate's campaign would be.

Judge Posner, I think, is making the case very effectively. If there are limits on direct individual donors' contributions because you do not even want to create the appearance of a quid pro quo, the idea a super PAC, whose

donors are known, has less of an ability to influence a candidate and more--I think, significantly, not only a candidate but perhaps an elected official--that does not follow. I think Judge Posner's comments are very on point in that this also invites the perception and perhaps the reality of inappropriate influence on candidates and on elected officials. That was a great deal at the heart of why we passed campaign reform legislation decades ago.

Even these points of view by Norm Ornstein and by Judge Posner have not, unfortunately, convinced my Republican colleagues to join us in effect in trying to correct a deficiency which my able colleague from Connecticut pointed out was the fact that the case of Citizens United presumes disclosure. We have tried to debate this legislation and variations many times before. I think we have taken even much stronger action in previous versions, but today we are here in a good-faith effort to meet our colleagues more than halfway.

There are those who opposed previous versions of the DISCLOSE Act on the grounds that there were provisions unrelated to disclosure. But these concerns are addressed head on in this legislation crafted by my colleague because it focuses solely on disclosure, and it is effective after this fall's elections. So I ask my colleagues, especially those who have said they are all for disclosure, to join us. Join us to pass this legislation because it is all about disclosure.

Let me go back to the language of the Supreme Court opinion quoted by Senator Blumenthal because they presume in the decision there would be full disclosure, and that is what we are asking for tonight on this floor: Give the Court what it thought it had, a system by which the American public can know immediately who is putting all this money into the elections.

In the words of the Court in Citizens United:

[P]rompt disclosure of expenditures can provide

shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold

corporations and elected officials accountable for their

positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether

their corporation's political speech advances the

corporation's interest in making profits, and citizens can

see whether elected officials are ``in the pocket'' of so-

called moneyed interests.

The First Amendment protects political speech; and

disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the

speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This

transparency enables the electorate to make informed

decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and

messages.

That is what the court said. Yet, if we do not pass this legislation, there will not be enough disclosure; because corporate shareholders cannot make judgments about what their corporate directors and managers are investing in, in terms of political activities. Individuals cannot make judgments about the commercials they are seeing because they don't know who is behind them, really.

If we want to create the context which presumably undergirded the Supreme Court's decision, we have to pass this legislation. If you do not want to ignore, indeed, what the Court has said, do not want to ignore what our constituents have said, and do not want to allow this anonymous money to flood our elections, to not raise doubt about the process, to not undercut what people traditionally think is the American way--one person, one vote;--then let's start by passing this legislation.

I urge my colleagues to support the DISCLOSE Act.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act. This is a tough economy for a lot of people across the United States. It is especially difficult in my home State of Rhode Island, and that is why I support the legislation before us today. It will help small businesses to hire new workers and to expand their payroll or invest in new capital equipment. This is a commonsense step to encourage growth and create jobs.

These tax cuts are cost-effective and have been estimated by the CBO as having some of the biggest bang for the buck compared to other fiscal policies that directly benefit businesses. It is especially important to pass cost-effective policies because we are in the midst of a global slowdown that is hurting job creation and lowering government revenue.

In contrast, the other body--the House--has been intent upon repealing the Affordable Care Act, rolling back regulations on firms that pollute, or providing tax windfalls to special interests. That approach will not provide the real economic growth we need today to put people to work. In fact, it will exacerbate our deficit, and it will hurt the middle class of the United States.

The targeted tax cuts in the legislation we propose, the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act, stand in stark contrast to the approach taken by the House Republicans in their Small Business Tax Cut Act, which is in many respects just another way to provide huge tax benefits to the wealthiest Americans instead of doing what we should be doing--providing jobs for all Americans. Proposals such as the House Republican bill will only generate 30 cents for every Federal dollar spent as compared to the $1.30 and $1.10 multiplier for tax cuts for job creation and investments in new equipment, respectively, that are included in our bill.

Even more disturbing with the House proposal is that nearly half of the $46 billion in tax cuts would go to the wealthiest Americans-- millionaires and billionaires--without having to create one single job.

In contrast, our bill provides a targeted 10-percent income tax credit for

businesses that increase their payroll by hiring new workers or raising wages this year. So there is a direct link between the tax credit and creating new jobs or raising wages for working men and women. This is a tax credit that is directly linked to this job creation effort, and the credit is targeted to increasing middle-class job wages because the credit only applies to the first $110,000 in wages for any individual employee. So we are looking to target this as closely and precisely as we can to be both effective and prudent with our resources.

The tax credit is further targeted to small businesses because it only applies to the first $5 million in new payroll, effectively capping the maximum tax credit to any business to $500,000.

The bill also extends bonus depreciation through 2012 for businesses that invest in new capital. Bonus depreciation has proved to be an effective incentive for businesses to pull forward capital purchases and invest in the near term, offsetting some of the weak aggregate demand that has held back our economic recovery.

In 2011, bonus depreciation accelerated $150 billion in tax cuts to 2 million businesses and generated an estimated $50 billion in added investment.

In total, the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act is estimated to create about 1 million jobs nationally and over 3,500 jobs in my State of Rhode Island. We desperately need these jobs, and we need them as quickly as possible. This bill is a responsible, cost-effective, and fair way to generate growth.

Before us today is yet another example of my colleagues in the Democratic caucus putting forth reasonable solutions that have been analyzed by economists and determined to provide immediate help to millions of out-of-work Americans. But my fear is that my colleagues on the other side will again filibuster and oppose this effort, like others we have made, while only offering proposals that promise great things but in reality contribute very little to putting people to work quickly. And that is our challenge.

The damage caused by the refusal of many of my colleagues to support these legitimate job proposals and their efforts to actively unwind Federal support for our recovery is hard to overstate. Their narrowly focused economic proposals, in which a vast portion of their tax cuts flow to millionaires and billionaires or corporations that send jobs overseas, doesn't help our middle class, doesn't help our economy, doesn't help our Nation's fiscal health. Republican proposals do not respond to our immediate crisis.

The legislation before us does respond to that crisis by creating jobs for middle-class working Americans right now. And it does not give large additional tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans.

So I hope we can move forward. I hope we can bridge the differences and pass this legislation. It is legislation that has been looked at by economists and has been determined to provide real benefits. For every dollar we invest, we will get more than that in terms of economic productivity in the economy. Again, this is in stark contrast to simply proposing to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans and assume that would put people to work. That was the essence of the Bush economic policies, and at the end of 8 years we were in one of the deepest economic crises, losing hundreds of thousands of jobs per month.

We pulled back from that brink, but in order to go forward, and go forward with momentum and confidence, we have to pass legislation such as the legislation we have proposed today: targeted efforts to put people to work, to move our economy forward, to move the Nation forward. This will help millions of Americans who are impacted by this tough economy in the most meaningful way--and that is simply by getting them back to work. When we do, this country will do great things, as it always has done. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.