Job Preservation for Parents in Poverty Act

I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln) is necessarily absent.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, if you opened the newspaper over the last several weeks, you have probably noticed a large full-page advertisement that has appeared almost every day. It shows, usually, a young person, and it has a caption that reads: ``A hundred thousand working Americans don't count? Put the brakes on the Department of Education's gainful employment rule.''

There are a lot of photos of young people with that basic statement popping up in newspapers not only in Washington but across the United States. Others show photos of young people saying: ``I don't count? Some in Washington think I don't.''

These ads have been hard to miss. They have been running in more than 10 newspapers on a daily basis for several weeks, at a cost of millions of dollars. Most Americans, when they look at it, are puzzled and say: What is this debate and this battle all about?

Well, many of these ads are being paid for by Corinthian Colleges, Incorporated. This is a for-profit higher education company that provides training and education after high school for young people across America--and for those who are not so young anymore. Corinthian and other for-profit colleges

are upset about a regulation that the Obama administration has proposed. Corinthian is spending millions of dollars on a barrage of ads across the United States, rather than basically taking the same money and offering it in scholarships to help their students. They want to stop the Obama administration from its proposed change in the rules. The proposed regulation could end Federal subsidies to some of the poorest performing for-profit colleges in America. That might hurt the profits of some very wealthy corporations, especially Corinthian.

This is simple dollars and cents. They are spending millions of dollars now to persuade Congress, and perhaps some voters and opinion makers, not to enforce a rule that holds them to a standard of performance because they may lose business. If they lose business, they may lose profits. In losing profits, they think it is worth putting money into this advertising effort. They are worried, because if you take a look around, you cannot miss them in Washington. I have said, half jokingly, that having served in Congress for more than 20 years, the best way I can find to meet former Members of Congress whom I have served with over those 20 years is to take on this issue because they have all signed up as lobbyists for these for-profit colleges. They are calling me and saying: Durbin, guess who I am working for. It turns out my efforts to hold for-profit colleges accountable for the students going to school there and ending up deeply in debt is a full employment bill for former Members of Congress to be lobbyists. That was not my intention. It is not my goal.

They are also spending millions of dollars on these ad campaigns, about which I have spoken to newspaper people who say: The newspaper business isn't profitable anymore, but thank goodness these schools are buying full-page ads. So I have this sort of one-man campaign to put Americans back to work and make American newspapers more profitable. It is almost the basis for a comedy routine, except what I am talking about is not funny at all.

I am talking about some of these for-profit schools that are sinking young people deeply into debt in student loans that they can never pay off, promising them courses, training, and degrees that will lead to a good job and, in fact, it leads to a dead end, where they end up with a worthless piece of paper. They don't end up with the skills they need to get a job, but they do end up in debt, with student loans to the heavens.

I think the Department of Education is on the right track. If we are going to send literally millions, if not billions, of dollars to colleges and schools that are training those who finish high school, we should have some standards there. We should not just give them to anyone who happens to call themselves a school or calls their effort an education and training. It is right to ask these questions.

The proposed gainful employment regulation is complicated, and some changes may be made before it is all over. It is basic: For-profit colleges should not routinely leave students with student loan debt that they cannot afford to pay back. Luring a 19-, 20- or 21-year-old deeply into debt, when they are being promised a job they will never have, is cruel and unfair. In a moment, I will tell you what happens when the students default on their debts. In the meantime, the taxpayers are subsidizing this. It is our Federal tax dollars passing through Washington and out to these schools, loaned to students, paid to the colleges that are representing they have something good to offer, leaving students deeply in debt and many without a job.

This rule the Obama administration is looking at would look at debt- to-income ratios and student loan repayment rates to determine those education and training programs that are leaving students with more debt than they can realistically ever pay back. Those programs might have to print a warning label on their promotional materials about the high debt levels of their students or there might be restrictions on enrollment in departments of schools that regularly produce students who are deeply in debt without a job. Some programs would actually lose their eligibility for Federal student aid if they don't meet certain standards. I think that is an honest approach for the students and for our need in this country to educate and train people in our workforce.

Recently, I had a hearing in Chicago, and it was on this issue. I could not get over the crowd. I expected a few people to be interested, but 450 people showed up. We had to have an overflow room in the Federal courthouse. As I walked into that Federal courthouse building, I thought there was something else important going on there beyond my hearing. It turned out the demonstrators on the sidewalk outside were there for me. So I went up to talk to them; they were students. These two students I spoke to were dressed in a white tunic, which chefs wear, with buttons on the side. They were carrying a sign against the gainful employment rule. I talked to them. I said: Where do you go to school? They said they went to the Institute of Art of Chicago, located in the suburb of Schaumburg, IL.

For those of us who know Chicago, the reason that name is written the way it is written is because there is a real art institute in Chicago. This school is not affiliated with it, but it is creating the impression that it may have some connection. It doesn't. I asked the student: What are you studying? The student says: Culinary arts. I want to be a chef. I said: How long does the course last? He said: 2 years. I said: How much do you pay in tuition for this course? He said: $54,000. It costs $54,000 to work in a restaurant. I said: How much will you get paid after you finish the course, when you go to work? He said: We usually start at about $10 an hour, and if I work 6 days a week or maybe more and do overtime, I might make $30,000 a year gross. I said: Do you have any idea how long it will take to pay off this debt? What is this leading to? He said: Someday I want to own a restaurant. I said: That is a great ambition, but if you start this journey $54,000 in debt, what is the likelihood you will reach your goal? He said: Well, I am going to pursue it. I think it is the thing to do.

The same culinary course is offered at the community colleges in Chicago--a 2-year course, with the same preparation, and the tuition for 2 years is $12,000 versus $54,000. This young man is going to be deeply in debt, a debt which people our age think, my goodness, that is more than my first home cost. They are going to have that facing them as they start a job that pays about $10 an hour.

That, to me, is unfair and creates an unrealistic expectation. I wish there would be a suspension, for about 6 months, of the super chef, master chef shows, so all the young people who are bored and watching cable TV will not turn to these shows and have these dreams about being the master chef of tomorrow. For many of them, it will be a dream that is never realized, although the debt they incur will be realized in a hurry. We think these schools would either have to improve the salary outcomes of their students or cut tuition costs. Either way, that is good for students.

But the for-profit colleges want us to believe that the idea of controlling student debt somehow hurts these students. Look at Corinthian College spending millions of dollars on these ads to stop this accountability. This company is buying full-page print advertising all across America. It owns Everest College, Everest Institute, and Everest University. How many students are enrolled at the colleges owned by Corinthian? It is 112,000, including 20 percent through online courses.

If I did a quiz and asked the American people which institution of higher learning they believe receives the most Federal funds of any institution in America, most people would get it wrong. It is an institution that is owned by a company called the Apollo Group, and it is known as the University of Phoenix. The University of Phoenix has over 450,000 undergraduates enrolled. That is more than the combined undergraduate enrollment of all of the Big Ten schools--450,000-plus. They receive more Federal aid for education than any other institution in America. Next is DeVry out of Chicago--for 75 years--and I might add during the course of testimony before our panel, our investigation did come up with some very positive things to say. I hope what I am about to say is not taken to condemn every for-profit

school. I think some are doing a good job in some areas and they are valuable and should continue. The other is Kaplan University. Kaplan is owned by the Washington Post and is the biggest moneymaker in their corporation.

They have quite a few students. They are No. 3 in terms of receiving Federal aid to education. The fourth school, incidentally, is Penn State University, finally one you would guess would be there. It is a large university with online courses. That gives us an idea of where the Federal money is flowing from student loans and Pell grants. It is going to for-profit schools. They represent about 9 percent of all the students taking postsecondary education. They represent 25 percent of all the Federal aid to education and 43 percent of all the student loan defaults: 7 to 9 percent of the students, 43 percent of the defaults. It is an indication that we have a problem. We are shoveling money in the name of educating students at institutions which are heaping them up with debt and not providing them with training or preparation for a good-paying job.

In 2009, Corinthian--the one buying the millions of dollars in pages of advertising--had $1.3 billion in revenue, up 22 percent over the previous year, and 89 percent of the revenue for Corinthian Colleges across the United States came from the Federal Treasury, from taxpayers, in the form of Federal Pell grants and student loans. That does not include the GI bill, Department of Labor funding or Department of Defense funding.

The company's net income--that is their profit--was $71 million. The CEO of Corinthian Colleges, buying all these ads, was paid $4.5 million in executive pay and other compensation last year. Corinthian spent, out of the money they brought in--89 percent of it from the Federal Government--$295 million in advertising and recruiting in 2009. That is 22.5 percent of the total revenue went to advertising and recruiting.

They are, by and large, a marketing operation: bring the students in, sign them up, bring in the Federal dollars; bring in more students, sign them up, bring in more Federal dollars.

Given the ad campaigns in the newspapers, the amount spent on advertising by Corinthian is likely to go up even higher.

On average, for-profit schools, which receive the lion's share of the revenue from taxpayers, spend 25 percent of their revenue on advertising and recruiting.

What do community colleges across America spend in recruiting students to come to their campuses and classrooms? Not 25 percent of the revenue, 2 percent. They are being outclassed in the marketing battle by these for-profit schools.

How are the students doing at Everest College, for example? Recently, an undercover Government Accountability Office investigator went and took a look. That investigator posed as a potential student and found that the admissions representative at Everest College misrepresented the cost and length of the program and refused to disclose the graduation rate to this so-called potential student--not surprisingly. Do you know why? Only 15 percent of the student loans are being paid by the students who go to Everest; 85 percent of them are not paying on their loans. It shows they are getting into debt they cannot pay off.

Data from the Department of Education indicates that Corinthian, overall--in all their different colleges--has a 24-percent repayment rate. Three out of four students who go to their schools cannot pay the principal on their debt after they finish--three out of four. It is the lowest repayment rate of any publicly traded corporation in this business.

On a recent investor call, Corinthian acknowledged some campuses are at risk of losing their accreditation and that a majority of campuses will have 3-year default rates over 30 percent.

We cannot expect a young student fresh out of high school or someone without worldly experience to launch an investigation about whether a school is accredited. One assumes, if the Federal Government is going to send its money to that school for the students, somebody in Washington is keeping an eye on the school to make sure it is the real thing. The honest answer is we are not. That is why the Obama administration thinks we should change the rules, create more oversight on these schools, make sure Federal dollars are well invested and students do not end up overwhelmed by debt.

An independent analysis predicted that the Corinthian companywide 3- year default rate may be 39 percent. Do you know what that means? Two out of every five students who attend a college owned by Corinthian will default on their student loan within 3 years--40 percent of them.

That is happening despite the company's strong efforts to lower the number of defaults within the government's 3-year window. They are encouraging students to just pay interest on their debt if they cannot pay the principal so they can at least say you are paying something.

Corinthian spent $10 million over the last year to strengthen what it calls default management because they see the writing on the wall. It is indefensible that we are sending this money to the Corinthian corporation. They are heaping debt on the students and not producing an education that leads to a job.

Everett College in Illinois is doing slightly better with a default rate of 25 percent.

Corinthian also offers private loans to students who are in trouble. Listen to this. Corinthian Colleges' chief financial officer, Ken Ord, stated in a Federal 2010 investor call that they anticipate a 56- to 58-percent default rate on the private loans the school makes directly to students.

That is a 56- to 58-percent default rate on an estimated $150 million in internal student lending. Why is Corinthian willing to lend money to the students--their own money--when they know these students are already defaulting on their government loans?

The company is willing to take this loss of $75 million in private student loan defaults because these loans help ensure the Federal loans and Pell grants will keep coming in to these students, despite the fact they are in over their head in debt and have nowhere to turn.

Corinthian Colleges was sued by the State of California in 2007. The State argued it misled students about career opportunities. They reached a $6.5 million settlement in the State of California to refund tuition to former students, pay student debt cancellation, and pay civil penalties.

That was not the first time they had been in court. There have been a number of lawsuits from former students who had spent tens of thousands of dollars for useless degrees and useless certificates from Corinthian and Everest.

Recently, Corinthian and several of its executives are being sued by their own shareholders for allegedly making false and misleading statements about the company's business prospects.

I have questions about whether Corinthian is the education opportunity students are looking for. There are certainly students who have a good experience at one or more of the Corinthian schools, but I wish to share a story that they are not featuring in their full-page ads, arguing that they should not be subject to oversight by the Department of Education.

Last year, Washington Monthly magazine told the story of a student named Martine. At the age of 43, Martine decided to go back to school and pursue a career in nursing. She came across a Web site for Everest College, part of the Corinthian Colleges chain.

Martine was promised hands-on training in state-of-the-art labs and rotations at the Los Angeles Medical Center. She was worried about the $29,000 tuition but was told it would not be a problem. She was going to make $35 an hour as a nurse.

When Martine filled out her paperwork, she was rushed through the process and was not told the terms of her loans, including private loans that carried double-digit interest rates.

The education did not prove to be what she had been promised. The instructors were inexperienced. The lab equipment was old and broken. Instead of the promised rotations at UCLA Medical Center, her clinical training consisted of passing out pills in a local nursing home.

Martine was unable to find a job after she graduated. Instead, she is working as a home health care aide, and she cannot pay back her student

loans. She said: ``I made one mistake, and I will be paying for it for the rest of my life.''

Many of these for-profit colleges argue that we need them desperately because the community college system in America is filled. Not true. Over the last week, I went to Olive-Harvey College, part of the community college system in Chicago. They have new leadership that is inspiring. I said: What is your capacity?

They said: We are at about 50 percent of our capacity. We can absorb many more students in our community colleges.

The cost is a fraction of what these for-profit colleges charge. It is important we give to students the information about the variation in costs for education and training and what they can expect to receive. According to the Department of Education, Everest College in Skokie, IL, costs, on average, $14,000 in tuition and fees for education.

Less than 3 miles away from the Everest campus in Skokie is a school you and I both know, Mr. President--Oakton Community College.

At Oakton, students can earn degrees in the same fields, same certificates for dramatically less. A certificate in medical billing, a program offered at Everest College--the private, for-profit school--for over $10,000 will cost you $1,000 at Oakton Community College, one- tenth the cost of this private school.

The Corinthian ad campaign suggests we do not think the students who are enrolled in their schools count. I disagree with them. I think they count for a lot. They count for our future. I would like to tell the students attending for-profit colleges, it is because they count that we are asking these hard questions.

I see another colleague on the floor, the Senator from Minnesota, so I will wrap up quickly and tell one thing I want students across America to know. First, the standards I wish to impose on for-profit colleges I also wish to impose on community colleges, public universities, and private universities. They should be accredited so their hours are worth taking. They should not promise a job leading from a certificate that is earned there if it is not true. They should have full disclosure to students about what it means to enter into a student loan, and they ought to have some revenue coming in other than the Federal Government.

For many of these, 75 to 90 percent of their revenue comes straight from the Federal Government. When the GAO did the undercover survey of what some of these for-profit schools are saying to students, some of these recruiters were saying to them: I am a recruiter, but I just finished college, and I have a big debt I will never pay back. I am going to have a good job and make a lot of money, so it is OK.

Do you know what happens when you default on a student loan in America? It is time we tell students what they get into if they get in over their heads with a worthless education.

Your loan will be turned over to a collection agency and they may charge 25 percent more to collect what you owe.

Your wages can be garnisheed; that is, they can take it right out of your paycheck.

Your tax refunds can be intercepted by the Federal Government if you still owe on a student loan.

Your Social Security benefits ultimately will be withheld if you end up in debt at that point in life from a student loan.

Your defaulted student loan will be reported to a credit bureau and will remain on your credit history for 7 years, even after it is paid. That means you may not be able to buy a car, a house or take out a credit card. It might be you cannot get a job because of your credit history. You cannot take out more student loans or receive Pell grants to go back to school.

You are no longer eligible for HUD or VA loans.

You could be barred from the Armed Forces and might be denied some jobs in the Federal Government.

I might also add, most student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. When the bottom falls out and you go to bankruptcy court, that is the one that will still be hanging over you when you walk out of that court process.

We have to be honest with students across America and let them know what they are getting into when they get into student loans. I borrowed money. I went to a good school. I think it paid off for me. It was an important decision. I was not misled about my education. I knew what it would get, and I was willing to risk the debt to reach that goal, and it worked. That is a good thing.

For those who are misleading students and burying them deeply in debt, I can tell them the time of accountability has arrived. The Federal Government is going to keep its obligations to the students across America to help them with education, but these schools have an obligation to their students to be honest with them, to be accredited, and to produce training and education that leads to a good-paying job.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss something I regret. I regret that Democrats have allowed the word ``stimulus'' to become a dirty word, one that we avoid using.

The President spoke a few weeks ago about his new plan to invest $50 billion in new infrastructure--projects that will improve safety and transportation. But he never once mentioned the words ``stimulus'' or ``recovery.'' That was probably a smart move on his part because, frankly, the stimulus has gotten a bad rap. But this is a reputation it absolutely does not deserve.

There are Members of this body who opposed the Recovery Act because they thought it would not work or did not jibe with their theory of economics or of how the government should address recessions, and that is fine. They were entitled to vote the way they thought best. But now a year and a half later, we have been able to see the economic effects of the Recovery Act. To deny it has been a success is simply to ignore the facts.

A recent poll showed that a majority of Americans believe that either the stimulus bill did nothing to help the economy or even made it worse. The economic data, however, indicates otherwise. How do we explain this disparity between what people believe and what the data supports?

Members of the American public do not form opinions out of thin air. They engage themselves. They watch the news. They listen to speeches by elected officials. One would expect that watching the news and listening to your elected officials would be a decent way to form an opinion about something. Unfortunately, the talking heads on many of the news shows, along with many elected officials, have been feeding the American public half-truths, at best, about the Recovery Act, and that, frankly, is cheating the American people out of the facts.

Today, I wish to go through some of these claims made by these talking heads and elected officials and then follow it up with some data, and that way the American people can use the facts to decide for themselves.

Let's take claim No. 1 about the Recovery Act, made by one of my colleagues in February: ``It didn't create one new job.''

The Congressional Budget Office--the arbiter and referee of economic questions that we in the Senate all have agreed to abide by--reports that the Recovery Act has increased employment by 1.4 million to 3.3 million people. A separate report issued by two respected economists corroborates CBO's estimates, putting the figure at about 2.7 million jobs. That report was issued by Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi. That is Mark Zandi, who, incidentally, was a key economic adviser to the John McCain Presidential campaign in 2008.

I understand that economic analysis has a lot of errors; that estimating jobs figures is very complex and it is difficult to determine whether a job was created or saved. But when CBO and respected economists agree that employment has increased by millions of jobs, is it at all plausible that the Recovery Act didn't create a single new job? Well, of course it is not. But that doesn't seem to stop some misinformed souls from claiming that.

Let's tackle the second claim. My friends on the other side of the aisle often imply that tax cuts would have been more effective than the Recovery Act. But perhaps they have forgotten that over one-third of the stimulus package in the Recovery Act was comprised of tax cuts-- $288 billion of it.

Unfortunately, the tax cuts were designed in a way so that many Americans didn't notice they were getting them. An extra 20 bucks on your paycheck adds up for you and the economy over time but people don't notice it as they do when they get a big lump sum rebate or refund. But here is the thing about lump sum refunds. People like to save them or pay off debts with them. When you get an extra 20 bucks in the paycheck, you are more likely to spend it, giving the economy a boost.

This explains one unfortunate paradox of the Recovery Act. Because the tax cut was well designed, it helped boost consumer spending, but nobody noticed it. But that is not a failure of Recovery Act policy, that is a failure of getting the message to the American taxpayers. The tax cuts in the Recovery Act did their part. According to CBO, tax cuts for those in lower income brackets increased GDP by $1.70 for every dollar in tax cut.

For those who would argue the Recovery Act should have been only tax cuts, consider this: While tax cuts for lower brackets yielded a $1.70 GDP boost, tax cuts for higher income earners and companies only raised GDP by 50 cents per dollar spent, and neither of these figures compares to the return on the Recovery Act's public works investment--an impressive $2.50 increase in GDP for every dollar spent.

After tax cuts, another substantial portion of the stimulus was fiscal aid to States. The Recovery Act provided about $224 billion to States so they wouldn't have to slash essential State programs. State budgets across the country are in dire straits. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates 46 States will have budget shortfalls this year. Over the past 2 years, the Recovery Act has helped fill in a large percentage of State fiscal gaps.

Imagine where State budgets would be had they not received assistance from the Recovery Act. Imagine the layoffs of teachers and firefighters and law enforcement, and of people who deliver key social services, for which there is far more demand during an economic downturn.

Let's look at another misleading claim--that the Recovery Act failed because it didn't keep the employment rate under 8 percent, as President Obama promised. Well, it is true that President Obama's advisers did not accurately forecast the gravity of the unemployment crisis. But, frankly, nobody did. And because of the lag in unemployment data, we now know that unemployment had already surpassed 8 percent by the time the Recovery Act was signed into law.

Let me walk you through this, because it is interesting, I promise. The claim about Obama's promise of keeping unemployment down actually came from a report issued by Obama's advisers on January 9, 2009-- before he took office. In early January, we only had access to job numbers through November. Back in November 2008, unemployment was about 6.9 percent. By December, it had risen to 7.4 percent. But the Recovery Act wasn't signed until February 17, and by February the unemployment rate had risen to 8.2 percent.

So the unemployment rate was already over 8 percent when the Recovery Act was signed, let alone had any chance to go into effect. By that time, Obama's advisers, along with most other economists, had realized the tide of unemployment was going to be much more severe. So it is fair to say that President Obama's advisers underestimated the coming employment crisis, but it is not fair to say that unemployment exceeding 8 percent was a failure of the Recovery Act. It is preposterous to say that because the report issued by Obama's advisers contained an economic forecast that later proved to be inaccurate, therefore, Obama lied or that he broke his promise or that he is an expert in snake oil, as I heard a talking head on a Sunday show say. A forecasting error is not a lie.

Let's look at another claim. As an elected official has stated:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, since the

stimulus was passed we have lost 3 million real jobs, 2.4

million net jobs in this economy and all the calculations and

reports from the White House are not going to change the fact

that their economic stimulus bill has failed.

Okay, this is a fun one because, technically, the first part of the claim is correct--since the Recovery Act, we have had a net job loss.

Here is a chart illustrating the job losses mentioned. These are job losses, here. See. You may notice a trend. I am going to show another chart that might put this more in context. You may notice a trend here. This is President Bush. If we had a slide whistle, it would whistle up on the scale. And if you had a slide whistle for here--here is the Recovery Act--it would whistle up on the scale. There is a trend. You can tell by my slide whistle that the Recovery Act was clearly a turning point. We went from a downward slide to a relatively upward climb. It is not as fast as we would like, and things have been slightly stalled of late, but clearly--clearly--we are doing much better.

This is Bush's last day in office.

In fact, one could make the argument that the stimulus was key in reversing our slide into a depression. In fact, that is pretty much exactly what Blinder and Zandi have said about the Recovery Act. Remember, this is Mark Zandi, who was John McCain's economic adviser. The Blinder-Zandi report sums it up this way: The government response to the crisis ``probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0.'' Again, from the adviser to the 2008 Republican Presidential candidate.

I think avoiding a depression is, on balance, a good thing, and I think most Americans would agree. And if they knew the facts, they would thank President Obama and the Members of Congress who kept us from sliding into another Great Depression.

Let's look at a fifth claim. A prominent elected official said recently that he thinks the Recovery Act created only bureaucratic government jobs--only bureaucratic government jobs. In response to that, I wish to show a few recovery projects in progress in my State of Minnesota. You can judge for yourself whether they are bureaucratic government jobs.

I am not sure how the cameras work here in the Senate for those watching on TV, but maybe they can push in here on Jamie, a Local 361 carpenter from Cloquet, MN. Here he is performing scaffolding work on the north tower of the Duluth aerial lift bridge. He is doing this in January 2010. The Duluth aerial lift bridge, I think, is the largest in North America. The south tower will be completed this winter as part of the two-phase $5 million project funded by the Recovery Act.

Jamie, his wife and two children--aged 19 and 14--went without health insurance for 13 months when he was on unemployment. He was hired for this job last winter and worked enough hours on this job to get back on health insurance. The Recovery Act has enabled Jamie and his family to get back on their feet. I ask you: Does Jamie look like a government bureaucrat?

How about Cecil? Here is a picture of Cecil. I want to ask you: Does Cecil look like a bean counter for OMB? Cecil is pictured here working on the Highway 610 extension project in Brooklyn Park, MN. He is building 6 miles of sound walls. I attended the groundbreaking ceremony for this project. So did a Republican Congressman from this district, who voted against the stimulus package. Cecil had been unemployed since 2008 before being hired onto this Recovery Act-funded project. He has told us he is very thankful for the opportunity to earn a living wage to support his family.

Next, we have Spencer, a Local 49'er crane operator for a contractor named LUNDA, working on the 694/35W widening of bridge and on and off ramps--a $2.5 million project. There are 11 onsite contractors--private contractors--working on the project. Spencer, who is 23, is from Isle, MN, and was unemployed until this job came along. Spencer told me:

I wasn't working until this job came along . . . investing

in our country's infrastructure is an investment in my

financial fate and family's future.

As I said, his Local 49'ers run heavy machinery. I don't know about you, but I don't know many Washington bureaucrats who can safely operate heavy machinery.

Who is next? Matthew and Randy, both Laborers Local 563. They had been employed by contractor CS McCrossan for 7 and 13 years, respectively, before they were both laid off last fall. But this spring, they were hired back to work on several different Recovery Act- funded projects. They are pictured here working on a pedestrian replacement bridge on 49th Avenue Northeast over Central Avenue in Columbia Heights, MN. You can see them. They are, you know, a couple of CBO paper pushers, I guess.

Next we have Sheila. Here she is working on the night shift on the I- 94 rehabilitation project. I-94 is a huge interstate highway in Minnesota--a very important artery. Sheila is new to the construction industry but her work ethic has led her colleagues to comment that she has a bright future in the industry. These are just a few of the 70,000 Recovery Act projects happening across our country.

Here is another project in Two Harbors. These guys are building a water tower. In addition to five crews of workers on the project, the tower tank is made of 723,000 pounds of American steel. Let's get a picture of it; looks like a little more in progress--723,000 pounds of American steel, and the rebar is another 33,000 pounds of American steel. So additional American workers made this steel. More American workers mined the iron, Minnesotans on the Iron Range--Minnesotans. More jobs. I visited Two Harbors on September 6, just a few weeks ago, and personally saw this project in progress.

As you can see, these folks are not in suits and ties shuffling papers; they are building bridges, they are building roads, they are building water treatment plants and water towers. These projects are going to improve transportation and the health and safety of people in Minnesota. Because of these jobs, made possible by the Recovery Act, they will keep a roof over the heads of their families, put food on the kitchen table, send their kids to college, and, yes, buy stuff.

Another vital component of the Recovery Act that is often overlooked is its expanded funding for unemployment insurance that helped keep 3.3 million unemployed people, including 1 million children, out of poverty in 2010.

Another overlooked but critical program in the Recovery Act is the funding for Head Start. The $2 billion allocation preserved Head Start and Early Head Start programming for 64,000 children across the country--over 900 in Minnesota alone. These programs are helping the most vulnerable kids, kids in our communities.

It is simple. Economic analysis suggests that the Recovery Act boosted demand, created millions of jobs, kept families in their homes, and helped the economy start growing again.

Let me tell you what I love about being a Senator as opposed to being a candidate for the Senate. I think most of my colleagues can relate to this. The Presiding Officer has been a statewide candidate many times. When you are a candidate, you are speaking mainly to your own people. If you are Republican, you are speaking to Republicans to get the nomination and then to get out the vote. If you are a Democrat, you are doing the same. But as a Senator, you talk to everyone.

As Senator, I have been privileged to go all around the State of Minnesota and talk to folks at economic development meetings. I have talked to county commissioners and mayors and city councilmen and small businesses and community bankers. You know what. I don't know what party they are in, and I don't care. We are trying to get people going. We are trying to get the economy moving. Everywhere in Minnesota, do you know what these folks say to me? Thank you for the Recovery Act. Thank you. Thank you for the teachers we are able to keep on here in Brainerd, the firefighters, and for the Workforce Investment Act funds so we are able to train people for jobs that were available but didn't have trained people for. Thanks for the highway underpass so school buses do not have to cross the train tracks or an ambulance doesn't have to cross the train tracks. Thanks for funds for the wastewater plant or for rural broadband or for the weatherization of public buildings--speaking of which, Michael Grunwald, writing for Time Magazine, wrote this:

The Recovery Act is the most ambitious energy legislation

in history, converting the Energy Department into the world's

largest venture-capital fund. It's pouring $90 billion into

clean energy, including unprecedented investments in a smart

grid; energy efficiency; electric cars; renewable power from

the Sun, wind and Earth; cleaner coal; advanced biofuels; and

factories to manufacture green stuff in the U.S. The act will

also triple the number of smart electrical meters in our

homes, quadruple the number of hybrids in the Federal auto

fleet and finance far-out energy research through a new

government incubator modeled after the Pentagon agency that

fathered the Internet.

A few weeks ago, I heard a prominent conservative talking head on one of the Sunday news shows describe the Recovery Act this way. He said:

If I pay my neighbor $1,000 to dig a hole in my backyard

and fill it up again, and he pays me $1,000 to dig a hole in

his backyard and fill it up again, according to the national

income statistics, that is a $2,000 increment to GDP and two

jobs have been created. The American people understand,

however, there is no real wealth created in this kind of

transfer payment.

How offensive. How out of touch. Yet this is why so many Americans believe the Recovery Act has not created any jobs or just created jobs for bureaucrats.

I worry that my speech today is too little, too late. I worry that most Americans have already formed their opinion about the Recovery Act based on the inaccuracies they hear from beltway pundits or from elected officials. But I challenge these talking heads and these elected officials to find the Spencers and Sheilas and Cecils and Randys in their State, go out and watch them work or talk to a teacher in a classroom or a cop on the beat. They are not digging and filling holes in their neighbor's backyard. They are doing skilled work, necessary work, hard work rebuilding our roads, teaching our children, and getting paid for it. With their paychecks, they buy food for their families and make their car payments and maybe buy a new one, which generates more demand. That is an economic recovery in the making.

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

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

I ask unanimous consent I be recognized as in morning business.

Madam President, I released today a minority staff report of the Senate committee on Environment and Public Works. When Republicans were in the majority I chaired the committee and now I am the ranking member, minority member. We have been concerned for quite some time now that the heavyhanded overregulation we are getting from the Environment and Public Works Committee is taking its toll on American jobs. So we released this and documented a report that examines the impact on jobs and the economy from all these EPA rules and EPA regulations.

We are covering four areas. The focus is on the boiler MACT regulations, the revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone--we are all concerned about that--I notice the new cement MACT regulations, and the endangerment findings. These are just four rules that are costing us a lot of jobs.

There are many others we could be talking about, in fact we are going to be talking about in the near future: standards for cooling water intake structures at powerplants, National Ambient Air Quality Standards for dust and particulate matter--actually, they are talking about doing one now for farm dust. I am from Oklahoma. A lot of people back here don't understand when you grow something you have to grow it in dirt. When the wind blows that is dust, but you can't regulate it. But they think they can--the new source performance standards for coal- fired powerplants and refineries, and the rules governing disposal of coal combustion waste.

What does it all mean? The American Forest and Paper Association estimates, and I am quoting them:

. . . about two dozen new regulations being considered by

the Administration under the Clean Air Act, if all are

promulgated, potentially could impose on the order of $17

billion in new capital costs on papermakers and wood products

manufacturers in the next five to eight years alone.

That is just for one industry. You have all the other industries that will be affected.

Before I begin, let me say the Clean Air Act was a success. I have always been a supporter of the results of the Clean Air Act. We now have cleaner air from cars, from factories, and powerplants. It has been very successful. In fact, when we were a majority and I chaired that committee, we had the 3P regulations, we had the Clear Skies regulations we tried to promulgate--we have been attempting to do this for a long period of time. However, if we are going to be competing with other countries, this overregulation is going to do nothing but send our jobs to places such as China and India and Mexico.

Of the four areas I mentioned, the first is the boiler MACT. The MACT means maximum achievable control technologies. Forget about that, just call that regulation.

The first one, the regulations, would be the boiler MACT. It would impose stringent emission limits on monitoring requirements for 11 subcategories of boilers and process heaters.

The proposed rule covers industrial boilers used in manufacturing, processing, mining, refining, as well as commercial boilers used in malls, laundries, apartments, restaurants and hotels.

The Industrial Energy Consumers of America, which represents companies with 750,000 employees, said they are ``enormously concerned that the high cost'' of the boiler regulations will leave companies no recourse but to shut down the entire facility, not just the boilers.

This is what the econometrics firm IHS-Global Insight found in its analysis of the EPA's proposal, just the one proposal. They concluded that the proposal could put up to 798,000 jobs at risk. Moreover, they said every $1 billion spent on upgrade and compliance costs will put some 16,000 jobs at risk and reduce the U.S. GDP by as much as $1.2 billion.

The EPA's pending boiler regulations also threaten my home State of Oklahoma. We have one group, a company called Covanta Energy, which in 2008 reopened the Walter B. Hall Resource Recovery Facility, a waste- to-energy plant.

This happened, actually, when I was mayor of Tulsa many years ago. We had two great needs: one to dispose of waste and the other to create energy. So we did one of the first waste-to-energy plants in America. It was done back in the early 1980s when I was mayor of Tulsa. This is something that has been working out and working successfully. But they are saying it could threaten the viability of this operation, and it is not just in my State of Oklahoma but all over the country.

These concerns are shared by 40 of my colleagues, including 18 Democrats, who wrote Lisa Jackson--she is the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency--a letter. Keep in mind, half of these are Democrats.

As our Nation struggles to recover from the current

recession, we are deeply concerned that the pending Clean Air

Act boiler MACT regulations could impose onerous burdens on

U.S. manufacturers, leading to the loss of potentially

thousands of high-paying jobs this sector provides. As the

national unemployment rate hovers around 10 percent, and

federal, state and municipal finances continue to be in dire

straits, our country should not be jeopardizing thousands of

manufacturing jobs.

That is a quote from a letter, half Democrats, half Senators, 40 of us, to Lisa Jackson of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Just in the area of boiler regulation, one of the four I am going to talk about, potentially 1 million jobs could be lost. This is the problem we are having with the overregulation in this country. We have two major problems: overregulation and the fact we are not developing any power anymore, we made it so difficult. We have not had a new coal- fired powerplant in this country for quite some time. Yet China is cranking out two of them every week. This is our competition over there.

The second area is ozone. On January 6 of this year, for the second time in less than 2 years, the EPA proposed tightening the NAAQ standards for ground level ozone. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to strengthen the 8-hour ``primary'' ozone standard. The EPA estimates that setting the primary standard within its proposed range will cost between $19 and $90 billion. That is the EPA's estimate. This proposal comes at the heels of the 2008 ozone standard, which created a serious problem. The CAA, Clean Air Act, only requires revision at least 5 years. That was just 2 years ago. Now they are talking about doing it again. So the EPA is not required to revise the status quo.

Meanwhile, States are in the midst of trying to meet the 2008 requirements while some communities are not in compliance with the 1997 standards, the time they did it before.

EPA announced it is delaying the new standards until late October. Guess what. We are there. My guess is they will be delaying it until after the election because they don't want to know what hardship they are imposing upon the American people before the election. It is not hard to see why. Whatever level EPA ultimately picks, it will dramatically increase the number of so-called nonattainment areas nationwide.

Based on the 2008 air quality data, we could see as many as 608 new nonattainment areas, with many of them highly concentrated in manufacturing regions, in States relying on coal for electricity.

What does the nonattainment mean? For local communities, such as my communities in Oklahoma, it can mean loss of industry and economic development, including plant closures; loss of Federal highway and transit funding; increased EPA regulation and control over permitting decisions; increased costs for industrial facilities to implement more stringent controls; and increased fuel and energy costs.

In my State of Oklahoma, at least 15 counties would face new restrictions right now, under the 2008, and there are two counties that would be out of attainment. All these things would happen. You can't go out and recruit industry, they close down a lot of industries there now. I have listed in these remarks that will be part of the Record 15 counties in my State of Oklahoma that could be facing these new restrictions.

We all support cleaner air, but here is where the Obama EPA and I disagree. It should not come at the expense of people's jobs or the economy. Apparently, I am not the only one thinking this way.

On August 6, 2010, a bipartisan letter--this is the third one I am mentioning now--was sent to the EPA Administrator on the Agency's ozone reconsideration. It was signed by Senators Voinovich, Bayh, Lugar, Landrieu, Vitter, McCaskill, and Bond. That is an equal number of Democrats and Republicans. They said:

While we believe we can and should continue to improve our

environment, we have become increasingly concerned that the

Agency's environmental policies are being advanced to the

detriment of the people they are intended to protect. That

is, these policies are impacting our standard of living by

drastically increasing energy costs and decreasing the

ability of our states to create jobs, foster

entrepreneurship, and give manufacturers the ability to

compete in the global marketplace.

Again, that was just one of these four areas.

The third one would be the Portland cement regulations. This third rule is another regulation having to do with cement. According to the EPA, ``a projected 181 Portland cement kilns will be operating at approximately 100 facilities in the United States by the year 2013.'' EPA's new emission standards under section 112 of the Clean Air Act will apply to 158 of that 181. About 7 kilns will be subject to the EPA's new source performance standards under section 111 of the Clean Air Act.

The cement industry is essential to America's economy. According to a study by the Maguire Energy Institute at SMU, the cement manufacturing industry in 2008 produced $27.5 billion in GDP, $931 million in indirect tax revenues for State and local governments, and sustained 15,000 high-paying jobs.

In addition to those 15,000 direct jobs, the industry has an ``induced employment'' effect, which helps create and

sustain an additional 153,000 jobs. ``Importantly,'' the Maguire Energy Institute noted ``these are primarily high-wage jobs generating about $7.5 billion annually in wages and benefits.''

According to the Portland Cement Association, EPA's regulation puts up to 18 cement plants at risk of shutting down, threatening nearly 1,800 direct jobs and 9,000 indirect jobs, accordingly. I might add, one of these would be in my State of Oklahoma. These jobs in cement production would go to China. That is what a professor from King's College in London said about the EPA's rule--coming from London:

So rather than importing 20 million tons of cement per

year, the proposed [rule] will lead to cement imports of more

than 48 million tons per year. In other words, by tightening

the regulations on U.S. cement kilns, there will be a risk

transfer of some 28 million tons of cement offshore, mostly

to China.

Senators Voinovich and Lincoln wrote a bipartisan letter to Administrator Jackson, sharing these concerns back in February, saying:

In a very real sense, if a reasonable standard is not

adopted in this matter, we anticipate that substantial cement

capacity may move overseas to the detriment of industrial

employment. . . .

And the detriment of hundreds of thousands of people in the United States.

The fourth is my favorite. To give just a little bit of background, way back when we had the Kyoto treaty in the 1990s, there was an effort at that time to say we have catastrophic things happening, global warming and all that, as a result of primarily man-made gases. They tried through the years to pass legislation. We had the 2003 and 2005 McCain-Lieberman bills. Then we had the Markey bills and the others. I think one was a Boxer-Sanders bill. All of them were essentially doing the same thing; it was called cap and trade. It was something I characterized as the largest tax increase in the history of this country.

As a matter of fact, during the consideration of all of these bills, they estimated--and this was several--MIT, CRA, and several other institutions said that the cost to America would be somewhere between $300 and $400 billion a year.

The rule discussed is the endangerment finding. As I have documented on the Senate floor before, the EPA promulgated its endangerment finding on greenhouse gases in December of 2009, which I said could lead to the greatest bureaucratic intrusion into the lives of the American people. It would trigger costly, time-consuming permitting requirements for new and modified stationary sources for greenhouse gases such as powerplants, factories, and refineries.

So the problem with this is that when the Obama administration saw that Congress was not going to pass these very punitive tax increases called cap and trade, they decided they were going to try to do it through regulation. That is what this is all about. This is just one- fourth of the minority report we have out there that we introduced today.

The rule, in order to do this--and I will never forget because right before I went over to Copenhagen in December, we had a hearing in the Environment and Public Works Committee, and we had Lisa Jackson--I have a great deal of respect for her--before the hearing.

I said: Madam Administrator, I suspect that when I leave for Copenhagen tomorrow, you are going to have an endangerment finding.

An endangerment finding is a finding that will allow them to promulgate rules to do what they failed to be able to do in legislation.

I said: And to do that, it is going to have to be based on some science. What science would that be based on?

She said: Primarily, the science that came from the United Nations.

And the IPCC--since that time, there has been Climategate--told the truth about how they have been trying to cook the science over that period of time. So this is one that is really very serious.

But the U.S. Chamber found that if they are able to go ahead and use the emissions, it would affect 260,000 office buildings, 150,000 warehouses, 92,000 health care facilities, 71,000 hotels and motels, 51,000 food service facilities, 37,000 churches and other places of worship, and 17,000 farms. That is because they would be falling under the category--the 250 tons of emissions of CO2 per year.

The greenhouse gas regulations will mean higher energy costs for consumers, especially for minorities and the poor.

I had the Catholic Charities in my office today. We had, actually, the man, who I learned just died this last week, with the Ohio Catholic Charities down for hearings when we were talking about all the things they were trying to do through the various bills on cap and trade. His testimony was--and these individuals were in my office today--that it disproportionately hurts poor people. For example, if someone is in poverty, there are just some things that person has to have--heating the home in the winter, transportation costs, costs that are necessary. If you are a wealthy person, that might constitute maybe 5 percent of your expendable income, but it could be 100 percent of the income of someone who is poor. So it disproportionately hurts the poor people.

This is why, on February 19, recognizing that he was going to lose a lot of jobs, Senator Rockefeller, joined by seven of his Democratic colleagues, wrote--again, this is the fourth letter--to Administrator Jackson on their concern with the endangerment finding.

We write with serious economic and energy security concerns

relating to the potential regulation of greenhouse gases from

stationary sources under the Clean Air Act. We remain

concerned about the possible impacts on American workers and

businesses and a number of industrial sectors, along with the

farmers, miners and small business owners who could be

affected as your energy agency moves toward the regulations

for vehicle greenhouse gas emissions.

You know, as bad as things are right now, we are supposed to be able to knock down and the President said we are going to bring unemployment down to somewhere around 6 or 7 percent, and it is still right up there at 10 percent. These regulations haven't even gone into effect yet. So that is going to cause the unemployment figures to be much higher.

So I think it is important to recognize right now, before it is too late, that something can be done about this overregulation right now, and I really believe this is the opportunity that we have.

This report we just released today is on my Web site, inhofe.senate.gov, and we have now been able to get this around the country so that people know that as bad as the unemployment and overregulation is that is costing American jobs, it could be a lot worse if these four regulations get into full effect. I think it is our job here in the Chamber to recognize that we have a very serious unemployment problem in this country, a very serious overregulation problem in this country, and we can now do something about it.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado.) The clerk will call the roll.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Webb.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

U.s. Senate Staff: Great Federal Employees

Mr. President, last week I stood at this desk and recognized my 100th and final great Federal employee. Since May, I have come to the floor each week to share the stories of dedicated men and women who have chosen to work in public service.

Honoring these individuals has been truly one of the highlights of my time in office. As my term nears its end, I look over at this mosaic of dedicated government employees, and I hope that these speeches each week in their honor have drawn attention to the excellent work they have done and continue to do for our Nation.

At a time when politicians express their frustration with lack of progress by attacking nameless, faceless Washington ``bureaucrats,'' I thought it important to shed light each week on the face, story, and accomplishments of individual Federal employees. In that way, in my own small way, I hope I have helped remind people that those who pursue government work are constantly trying their best, often at great personal sacrifice, to make this a better country and a better world.

These 100 are a microcosm of our government workforce; as I have said before, they are not exceptional but exemplary. They come from over 40 departments, agencies, and military service branches. They represent a Federal workforce of 1.9 million.

Just as we 100 Senators are a snapshot of the American people, these 100 great Federal employees are a snapshot of the hard-working men and women who serve the American people every day.

But, just as it takes more than a 100 great Federal employees to carry out the work of the American people, it takes more than us 100 Senators to perform the work of the U.S. Senate. This week, in closing my series of speeches

honoring public service, I want to recognize the untiring efforts of U.S. Senate staff.

I am not only speaking of those who work for Members as personal staff. I mean everyone here who has a role in making the Senate work, including those who work in the cloakrooms, the Parliamentarian's staff and that of the clerks, those who provide support services through the Sergeant at Arms and the Secretary of the Senate, the men and women who serve as Capitol Police, and so many more. Over 7,200 people work as Senate staff in personal offices, for committees, and for the various services that keep the modern Senate functioning.

All of them know well the importance of the Senate in our system of government and the role it plays binding our large and diverse Nation together. Indeed, on the west pediment of the Dirksen Building it is inscribed: ``The Senate is the living symbol of our union of states.''

It is a living symbol in that we rely upon a deliberative group of wise men and women to smooth out our differences and keep fastened securely our union's many parts.

We cannot do this without the help of our staff. They brief us on issues and provide up-to-the minute research. They are our link with executive agencies and the military. They maintain our busy schedules and keep us on time, or mostly so. They form a network that links our offices together with one another and make bipartisan deals possible. Most important, they keep us connected to our constituents while we are here working for them in Washington.

Who are these staffers, and what brought them to these Halls?

Many of them are young, in their twenties and thirties. They have an energy and passion for the issues on which they work. Those who stay more than a few years often spend their whole careers here, becoming some of our Nation's leading experts in their issue areas. Just like Members, staff preserve the institutional memory of this body and pass on its traditions and history.

We have staffers from both civilian and military backgrounds. Every profession and field of education is represented here. Senate staffers have trained as doctors, lawyers, writers, farmers, nurses, engineers, teachers, manufacturers, the list is endless. They come from every State and territory in the Union.

They are creative and intellectual, pragmatic and imbued with good- old common sense. Senate staffers are diverse in both their origins and their ideas.

The paths that led them to the Senate are diverse as well. Staffers have come here because they are driven by a shared love of country and they long to play a constructive role in our Nation's history. One of the common traits of Senate staffers is that, when asked, they will say that there is something truly special about working in the Capitol and these impressive office buildings. Their eyes light up talking about the history and gravity of this place. They share the great feeling of excitement from living inside the news.

Staff work under the long shadows cast by this body's Members. Infrequently seen in the public spotlight, nevertheless their hands mold and shape everything we debate and pass. Here no 2 days are the same; there is no routine.

I like to think that my staffers are the best, but I know that every Member or Senate officer thinks his or her staffers to be the greatest. I would never dare dispute any of them.

Senate staffers share in common a deep sense of pride in their public service. They share the experience of walking through these august Halls and feeling goose-bumps from the power and weight of history and their palpable role in it. On both sides of the aisle they all want America to be strong, prosperous, and safe.

Senate staffers are so great because they take their jobs so personally.

This is why they work so hard. It is why they are here on weekends, drafting legislation, hammering out deals across the aisle, and advising their Members on the next day's votes. It is why front desk staff assistants are so compelled to engage with the constituents who call in with questions about bills.

It is why security guards, maintenance personnel, and those who work in the Printing, Graphics, and Direct Mail division trudged through the snowstorm to get here when all other government offices were closed. It is why all kinds of staff are here past midnight regularly.

I was a Senate staffer for 22 years. My service as chief of staff to Joe Biden gave me the chance each day to work with wonderful people on both sides of the aisle who came to the Senate motivated by love of country. Many of those with whom I worked during those days went on to other jobs in government and continue in public service today. A number of former Senate staffers now serve in the House of Representatives and in this Chamber.

As I come to the end of this series, I cannot help but think about all those great Federal employees I have not had a chance to honor from this desk. There are so, so many. They are the unsung heroes that keep our Nation moving ever forward.

I hope my colleagues and all Americans will join me in thanking those who serve and have served as staff here in the U.S. Senate. They are all truly great Federal employees.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor one final time to talk about the integrity of our equity markets, a subject I have made a central focus of my Senate tenure. It is an issue that has gained increasing attention, especially since the May 6 flash crash, yet still lacks fundamental transparency, regulation or oversight.

A year ago, I wrote to Mary Schapiro, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, to outline my concerns. Seven times since then I have come to the Senate floor to talk about the dramatic changes taking place in our equity markets, discussing obscure practices such as colocation, naked access, flash orders, and the proliferation of dark pools. But the most striking change has been the rise in high frequency trading which has come to dominate equity markets and now accounts for well over half of all daily trading volume.

My message about high frequency trading has been straightforward. The technological advances and the mathematical algorithms that have allowed computers to trade stocks in millionths of a second in and of themselves are neither good nor bad. Indeed, as an engineer, I have a deep appreciation for the importance of technological progress. But technology cannot operate in a vacuum, nor should it dictate how our markets function. Simply put, technological developments must operate within a framework that ensures integrity and fairness. That is why our regulatory agencies are so critically important. Because while technology often produces benefits, it might also introduce conflicts that pit long-term retail and institutional investors against professional traders who are in and out of the market many times a day.

As Chairman Schapiro has consistently asserted, including in a letter to me over a year ago:

If . . . the interests of long-term investors and

professional traders conflict . . . the Commission's focus

must be on the protection of long-term investors.

Many people have asked me why I focused so intently on the arcane details of how stocks are traded during my time as a Member of the Senate. There are several reasons. First, it is Congress' job not just to look backward and analyze the factors that brought about the last financial crisis, it is also our job to be proactive and identify brewing problems before they put us into a new financial crisis.

Second, we simply must protect the credibility of our markets. I have said time and again that the two great pillars on which America rests are democracy and our capital markets. But there is more at stake than a structural risk that could bring our market once again to its knees as occurred on May 6. There is a real perceptual risk that retail investors will no longer believe the markets are operating fairly, that there is simply not a level playing field.

If investors don't believe the markets are fair, they won't invest in them. And if that happens, we can all agree our economy will be in serious trouble.

Third, we should have learned the lesson from derivatives trading that when we have opaque markets that are nontransparent, disaster is often not far behind.

It is hardly surprising that high frequency trading should deserve a watchful, and possibly critical, government eye.

It is simply a truism that whenever there is a lot of money surging into a risky area, where change in the market is dramatic, where there is no transparency and therefore no effective regulation, we have a prescription for disaster.

We had a disaster in the fall of 2008, when the credit markets suddenly dried up and our market collapsed and almost brought down not only our financial system but the financial systems of the world.

We had a near disaster on May 6, 2010.

Soon, the SEC will issue a second report on the causes of that May 6 flash crash.

I hope the SEC has moved much closer to truly understanding the dramatic changes in market structure that have taken place in the past few years, the potential ramifications of high frequency trading, and its impact on retail and institutional investors.

But this is about more than investor confidence. The primary function of our capital markets is to permit companies to raise capital, innovate, and grow in order to create jobs.

Publicly traded companies employ millions of Americans and are at the heart of our economy.

Their stock symbols should not be used simply as the raw material for high frequency traders and exchanges and other market centers more concerned with churning out serving long-term trade volume than investors and supporting fundamental company value.

Perhaps it is not surprising that our IPO markets--initial public offering markets--have deteriorated dramatically and only seem to work for the largest public offerings worth several hundred million dollars.

Indeed, the IPO situation today is so dire that had it been the case two decades ago, many of our most famous U.S. corporations, including Dell, Yahoo, Computer Associates, and Oracle, among others, might never have been nurtured--or perhaps even born.

Many people, including the consulting firm Grant Thornton, link this phenomenon directly to the rise of high frequency trading under a one- size-fits-all set of market rules that favors efficiency of trading above all else.

As for the Securities and Exchange Commission, I believe the SEC is still in the early stages of what I hope will be an extraordinary turnaround.

After years of deregulatory fervor which sapped morale and led to an egregious case of regulatory capture, we now have an emboldened agency, with a beefed up enforcement division, a serious chairman, and an invigorated staff.

That was evident in last week's hearing that I chaired in the Judiciary Committee on the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act.

The commission must still reform the way it gathers the facts it needs to study market issues and particularly high frequency trading.

Evidence-based rulemaking should not be a one-way street in which all

the ``evidence'' is provided by those whom the SEC is charged with regulating.

We need the SEC to require tagging and disclosure of high frequency trades and to quickly implement a consolidated audit trail so that objective and independent analysts--in academia, private analytic firms, the media, and elsewhere--are given the opportunity to study and discern what effects high frequency trading strategies have on long- term investors.

They can also help determine which strategies should be considered manipulative.

The recent ``layering'' case brought by FINRA against a high frequency trading firm was a good start, but much more needs to be done to end the ``wild west'' trading environment that today is eroding market integrity.

We cannot afford regulatory capture nor can we afford consensus regulation, not in any government agency, but especially not at the SEC, which oversees such a systemic and fundamental aspect of our entire economy.

Colocation, flash orders, and naked access are just a few practices that were fairly widespread before ever being subjected to any regulatory scrutiny.

For our markets to remain credible--and it is absolutely essential that they do so--it is vital that regulators be proactive, rather than reactive, when future developments arise.

After a year of intense study by me and my staff, I sent a letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2010, with my best summary of the market structure problems and potential solutions the commission faces.

I will now wait for the SEC report and findings before I add or subtract from my views, as expressed in that letter.

Though this work must be completed in my absence, I will continue to speak out on market structure issues long after I leave the Senate.

Because if we fail, if we do not act boldly, if the status quo prevails, I genuinely fear we will be passing on to my grandchildren a substantially diminished America: one where saving and investing for retirement is no longer widely practiced by a generation of Americans and where companies no longer spring forth from the well of capital flows that our markets used to provide.

Wall Street is a business like any other business in America. But it is also different in one important way: It is Wall Street that gathers up the hard-earned cash of millions of Americans and allows them to invest in capital markets that up until now have been the envy of the world.

These markets, like all markets, will ebb and flow.

But they should never be brought down by inherent structural problems, by trading inequities, or by opaque operations that shun transparency.

Wall Street holds a piece of American capital, our collective capital, and it has a real and profound responsibility to handle it fairly.

But that entails another obligation as well: to come to the table and play a constructive role with Congress and the Securities and Exchange Commission in resolving its current issues--especially the possibility of high frequency trading manipulation and systemic risk.

For too long, many on Wall Street have urged Washington to look the other way, to accept the view that all is fine. If Wall Street does not engage honestly and constructively, then these issues must be resolved without their input, and resolve them we will.

The credibility of our capital markets is too precious a resource to squander; as I say every time I have the chance, it is a fundamental pillar of our Nation. And if it is now threatened, Congress and the regulatory agencies will surely act.

We can fashion a better solution with industry input, not a biased solution, but a better solution, one that should benefit Wall Street in the long term, one that must benefit all Americans now. The American people deserve no less.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia wishes to continue as in morning business.

Mr. President, in the Senate, the core job, obviously, of any Senator is to do all we can every day to help our constituents. It has been such an honor for this Senator to stand with our newest Senator from West Virginia, Carte Goodwin, and work with him to do exactly that.

Before joining this body, Senator Goodwin made serving West Virginia his focus in everything he did--as an attorney; general counsel to our Governor; chairman of the School Building Authority, which is a very complex matter--and all the while exuding enormous character, great character, dignity, and always keeping West Virginia families first and foremost in his mind.

It has been interesting to watch him on this floor in this relatively short period of time in which he has been a Senator and still is--the way people come up to him, see him as a breath of fresh air, respond to his intelligence, his integrity, his modesty, and his very smart brain.

Senator Goodwin comes from a family deeply committed to public service that has taught him to work very hard, to give back, and be proud of where he came from. I respect him a very great deal.

More importantly, he has a deeply ingrained sense of what matters to West Virginia. He does not come from one of our big urban counties. He comes from a very small rural county, Jackson County. He knows what working families need. He knows what people who represent them in Washington need to bear in mind. As I say, his character is strong, his work ethic is unmatched, and his heart is always in the right place.

So it is a sad day for me, in a sense, because I respect him so much and like him so much and I will not be hearing him enough, except if he is dissatisfied with my work, in which case he can call me and tell me that and I will be taking copious notes.

I join Senator Goodwin to talk about an issue that impacts the lives of every American in this country; that is, workplace safety.

This past April, as West Virginia's other Senator has mentioned, we suffered the worst mining disaster in 40 years in this country. It was statistically shocking, it was personally horrifying, and deeply poignant. Twenty-nine miners were killed in an explosion at the Upper Big Branch Mine in Montcoal.

I was there with the families as we hoped and we prayed for any sign that their loved ones would emerge. For the most part, they did not. The sorrow and hurt and anguish I saw on their faces is unimaginable and indescribable. It is something that no family should have to go through, but it happens in West Virginia and, as it turns out, in other States.

But mining tragedies are not just happening in West Virginia. Nearly one-third of our States have experienced mining disasters this year, including Alabama, Arizona, California, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah. Yet the mining industry is not the only industry where significant improvements to workplace safety are necessary. We have seen major disasters take the lives of hard-working Americans employed in a variety of other industries: 7 dying in a refinery blast in Washington, 6 in an explosion at a clean energy plant in Connecticut; 11 died with the BP Oil rig disaster off the coast of Louisiana which we all know about.

In fact, there were more than 4,300 workplace deaths in the United States in the year 2009, this year not having been completed, but it is a decent benchmark. That is 11 deaths each and every day of the year-- 11 men and women who went to work but did not return home to their loved ones.

This is America. We are the greatest country on Earth. All of us together must do more to protect the lives of these workforces. That is why Senator Goodwin and I introduced the Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety and Health Act of 2010.

Senator Byrd worked diligently with the two of us on this bill, as have Chairman Harkin, Senator Murray, and obviously Senator Goodwin. They are committed advocates to the working men and women of our country and

in our State, and I wish to thank them for their tireless dedication to doing what is right.

This legislation contains commonsense proposals that will give Americans the peace of mind that comes from safe working conditions. It fixes the broken ``pattern of violations'' process which was meant to give MSHA authority to crack down on mines that repeatedly violate our laws, but has never been effectively implemented, this process. It takes a hard look at MSHA itself to make sure it is doing its job by creating an independent panel to investigate the Mine Safety and Health Administration's--MSHA's--role in serious accidents. In these matters where regulation is done on discrete and for the most part invisible industries, the people who do the regulating and the checking need to be looked at carefully, just as do those who operate coal mines. It gives teeth to existing whistleblower protections so miners can come forward to report safety concerns. It gives MSHA additional tools to keep miners safe, including the ability to subpoena documents and testimony outside of the public hearing context. This is something which OSHA has, and it is amazing to me that MSHA has not had it and does not have it. If this bill were to pass, it would happen.

Finally, sort of, it provides protections that will apply to workers across, as I indicated earlier, all industries; greater rights for victims and their families to participate in investigations and enforcement actions; updating civil and criminal penalties; and the requirement that hazardous conditions be addressed immediately so that litigation doesn't shoot right into the middle of it and delay the whole process.

Over the past few months, I have been working with my colleagues on the HELP Committee on bipartisan legislation--and I deeply appreciate the efforts of Senators Enzi, Isakson, and Hatch on the Republican side. I have worked closely with Senator Enzi and Isakson in the past on other matters, first with Senator Enzi on, of all things, the President's Commission on Coal back in the 1970s when he was mayor of Gillette, WY, and later with both him and Senator Isakson to pass the MINER Act which came right after the Sago disaster.

I stood with both Senators Enzi and Isakson at the Sago disaster as we tried to comfort families, as we sat in circles and Senator Isakson and Senator Enzi seemed to--well, Senator Enzi comes from a coal- producing State, Senator Isakson does not--but both of them profoundly related to the families. It was very clear in their voices and what we saw in their eyes, and the families felt it. I know they care deeply about coal miners.

But it is also no secret that I am deeply frustrated we have yet to produce a bipartisan bill. The families of the Upper Big Branch are wondering, What is the holdup, and, quite frankly, so am I.

The provisions that should be included in a strong workplace safety bill are not that hard to figure out. In fact, they are the very provisions Senator Goodwin and I have included in the Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety and Health Act, which is why I come before the Senate today to at the proper time ask for unanimous consent that our legislation be passed.

Before I ask for unanimous consent, which I will do, I wish to address three of the main objections I have heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. First, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have expressed concerns that including workplace safety standards for all industry amounts to overreaching. I am sure the loved ones of the workers who died at the refinery, at the clean energy plant, and the BP Oil rig would see things a little bit differently. I am sure they would tell us that this bill cannot simply be about mine safety alone--although that is huge and the bulk of the bill--we must include important Occupational Safety and Health Administration provisions that cover all industries. OSHA, for example, does have subpoena power, and it does cover all industries, but it too needs to be strengthened.

Second, my colleagues have questioned whether MSHA, the Mine Safety and Health Administration, needs adequate subpoena authority. The idea that a law enforcement agency such as MSHA does not have subpoena power to proactively make mines safer is, to me, unimaginable. We are seeing problems with the existing system right now. The State of West Virginia's subpoenas in the Upper Big Branch investigation are being challenged in court--totally predictable. The intent, of course, is to challenge them in court before they can be effective and to prevent the questioning of company officials and others with vital information. That is the story of mine enforcement in the coal fields.

Third, it has been suggested that we do not have enough data to support additional whistleblower protections for coal miners. Let me answer that by saying that back in April, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee heard testimony from Jeffrey Harris, a miner from Beckley, WV. Jeffrey told us--I was there--what it was like to work for Massey Energy. This is quoting Jeffrey Harris:

Either you worked or you quit. If you complained, you'd be

singled out and get fired. Employees were scared but, like

me, they have to feed their families. Jobs are scarce, and

good-paying coal mining jobs are hard to come by.

The Presiding Officer knows exactly what I mean. We are looking at $60,000-plus salaries, mostly in the very rural areas of our States, the southwestern part of the Presiding Officer's State, and it is quite true. What is somebody to do? They have a $60,000 salary or they have nothing, because jobs in those areas are not plentiful or, in some cases, simply don't exist.

To continue, in May, the House Education and Labor Committee held a hearing in Beckley, WV. We heard testimony from miners who have worked at Upper Big Branch and one of those miners, Stanley, nicknamed ``Goose,'' Stewart told us that:

No one felt they could go to management and express their

fears. We knew that we would be marked men. And the

management would look for ways to fire us. Maybe not that

day, maybe not that week, but somewhere down the line, we

would disappear. We'd seen it happen.

So enough is enough. No employee should be fired for reporting safety concerns. A lot of manufacturing companies--I am thinking of Toyota in West Virginia--have the assembly line and they have a rope that goes all the way down. If any worker sees any problem of any aspect, whether it is real or he imagined it or whatever, he pulls that rope, the production line shuts down, and the manager comes over and they fix the problem if it exists. But the comfort that brings to the worker is a very small price to pay for very well-made cars.

Finally, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have expressed concerns about reforming the pattern of violations process. The pattern of violations process, which does not sound very interesting but which is usually important in bringing things to a head, to justice--was intended by Congress to allow MSHA to take action against operatives that refused to follow our laws. But to date, no mine has ever officially been placed on pattern status. Why would that be? Well, one can only speculate.

I think everyone agrees that the process must be fixed, but what I don't want to do is to tie MSHA's hands or to dictate a formula that will virtually guarantee that no mine is ever placed in pattern of violations status. I want a proactive system, one that will identify troubled mines before accidents happen and one that focuses on rehabilitating mines that are having problems.

Mr. President, at this point, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3671, the Robert C. Byrd Mine Workplace Safety and Health Act of 2010, and that the Senate then proceed to its consideration; that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, first, I wish to reemphasize how much I respect Senator Enzi, the senior Senator from Wyoming, and the fact that he is quite right about the MINER Act and what took place after Sago, which was another rural spot in West Virginia where a number of people were killed--a lot of anguish--and it was the first time in 30 years that there had been any revision of the Federal mine safety laws.

I have to say, though, that the bill we passed, the MINER Act, was not fully--because it had to pass through the committee at that time that was controlled by the present minority, it did not come out as strongly as I would have preferred. However, it was a good bill and has had a good effect in mining.

One of the aspects of mining, which is hard for people to understand, is that there is no margin for error. There is no margin for it. It is a discreet industry, which, for the most part, is carried on out of sight--in this case, underground. The great majority--I would say well over 95 percent--of West Virginians and people from the Presiding Officer's State have never been underground--or I guess sometimes Senators and Congressmen and Cabinet officers.

Obviously, I am disappointed that my colleague objected to this bill. However, I very much believe Senator Enzi when he said that he wants to start working on a bill that will keep people safe. I point out to him that at no point did we call off the negotiations. We were simply at the end of the work period, at the end of August, and there had to be a period of negotiation going on with the staff, and we would come back and take the fruits of that negotiation and go ahead and work on the bill. That is what I would have wished to have seen happen, and what still can happen. As I listened to the Senator from Wyoming, I believe he wants that to happen. As it turns out, so do I, and I am sure Senator Goodwin does too.

People are counting on us to get this done. They deserve nothing less. I look forward to working on this. Obviously, it cannot be passed now. We have our work to do, but then again we have our work to do in any event.

Senator Goodwin and I and Senators Patty Murray and Tom Harkin wanted to lay this down as a benchmark of what a mine safety bill should be. It probably won't end up being in a bill, but that doesn't mean it should not be this bill. You can't do everything at once, and I understand that. I have faith that the process will produce--as the Senator indicated, a number of things were agreed on by Senators, and sometimes I wish it were the Senators negotiating with each other; I think we would get a better bill.

In any event, I have faith in the future, and we all have the eyes of 29 miners and so many others looking down on us waiting for us to take action.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.