A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of Family Assistance of the Administration for Children and Families of the Department of Health and Human Services relating to waiver and expenditure authority under section 1115 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315) with respect to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we are trying to work through all the issues we have. There are a few of them--not too many but a few. But I want everyone to know we can finish all of our work tomorrow. We can finish it all tomorrow, but we are not going anyplace. We are staying here until Tuesday, probably 3 or 3:30, because we have Yom Kippur on Wednesday, and then we will be right back here on Thursday. We have to finish our work.

So that means if we can't work things out, we are going to be here Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. I know we talk about this once in a while, and usually we are able to work things out, and I am glad we are. But just in case we can't, no one should think they are going to be able to catch an airplane out of here on Friday.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3525

Mr. President, I will be very quick. I know the assistant leader for the minority is here and I don't want to take a lot of his time.

The Senator from Montana, Mr. Tester, has assembled a broad package of legislation. It is bipartisan in nature, and that is an understatement, to support the needs of sportsmen throughout the country. He has worked with these groups, and I have been in meetings with him where he has tried to get Democratic Senators to back off and let this package go forward, and there have been adjustments made because of problems Republicans had and Democrats had. So I appreciate very much his work.

What his bill does is to combine about 20 bills that are important to the sportsmen community around this country. These measures would promote hunting, fishing and recreational access and they would foster habitat conservation through voluntary programs. More than 50 national groups support this. These are sportsmen and conservation groups.

This is an example of leadership that is important in this body, to work on things that bring together a disparate group of bills, bipartisan in nature, and try to move forward. We ought to pass this package today.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 504, S. 3525, the Sportsmen's Act of 2012; that the bill be read a third time and passed; the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we are trying to work through and finish all the issues we need to address before we can finish this work period. I wish to make it very clear to everyone, as I said a couple hours ago on the floor, that we can finish all our work tomorrow. But if we don't finish it tomorrow, we are going to continue to work on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, until late in the afternoon.

We have to get done a few things that are important. I know there are a lot of things we aren't going to be able to do, but that has been the way it has been all Congress. I am prepared now to ask consent to move along on one very significant part of what we need to do. The consent I will read into the Record in just in a short time addresses voting on a continuing resolution we need to keep the government running. It addresses votes on very different concerns of others who have sought to hold up consideration on the continuing resolution. I believe, with this consent, we have gone that extra mile.

The junior Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Paul, has been said to be holding up everything. We have two American Ambassadors, one to Iraq and one to Pakistan, and one would think we should be able to get this done. We have had something extremely important sponsored by, I think, 81 Senators, a containment resolution relating to Iran. So without belaboring the point, I have worked things out with Senator Paul, and we are going to have a vote on something he has wanted a vote on for a long time. We can do that.

I explained to a few Republicans earlier today--in fact, some last night--that I was working with Senator Paul and I think we have done that. He has been reasonable, and even though ideologically I sometimes disagree with him, I have always found him to be someone I can talk to. So I will be terribly disappointed if this person, whom it has been said by the Republicans appears to be holding up everything, now isn't holding up everything and that the Republicans, if there is an objection to this, are just hiding behind him because there is no reason we shouldn't

be able to move forward with this legislation.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3576, S.J. Res. 41, and H.J. Res. 117

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding cloture having been invoked, at a time to be determined by me, after consultation with Senator McConnell, it be in order and the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 3576, which is the legislation I have just referred to by Senator Paul, the text of which is at the desk; that there be up to 60 minutes of debate, equally divided between Senators Paul and Kerry or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill; that the vote on passage be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold; that if the bill does not achieve 60 affirmative votes, it be considered as having been read twice, placed on the calendar; that following the vote on passage of that legislation, S. 3576, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 418, S.J. Res. 41; that there be up to 60 minutes of debate equally divided between Senators Kerry and Paul or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the joint resolution; that if the joint resolution is not passed, it be returned to the calendar; that following the vote on the joint resolution, the Senate resume consideration of H.J. Res. 117, the continuing resolution; that the motion to proceed be agreed to, there be up to 60 minutes of debate, equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to a vote on passage of the joint resolution; that the vote on passage be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold; that following the vote, the majority leader be recognized; and, finally, that no amendments, motions or points of order be in order during the consideration of these measures.

Mr. President, to everyone within the sound of my voice, I say again, we shouldn't be surprised. Even though there had been all this focus on Senator Paul, that he was holding up everything, that is not the way it is. He is not holding up everything. It is the Republicans.

All this has been cleared on my side. It is unfortunate. We will continue to work to reach an agreement. We need to move this vote on the CR. Unless we have some agreement, it is going to occur at 8:45 tomorrow night, which is when the 30 hours expires. So I think we need to continue to see if we can work our way through the logjam the Republicans have put up here.

If nothing happens, we will be out of here in a little bit tonight and proceed to vote tomorrow night. But Rand Paul is not holding up things, as has been rumored around here for weeks.

Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 8 and S. 3412

Mr. President, on July 25, the Senate conducted two important votes on dealing with the so-called fiscal cliff. That day the Senate voted on extension of the tax cuts enacted in 2001, 2003, and 2009. Democrats, and a majority of the Senate, voted to extend tax cuts for 98 percent of American families while at the same time reducing the deficit by $1 trillion over 10 years. Republicans, on the other hand, insisted on a vote on their plan--a plan that provided tax breaks averaging $160,000 for millionaires at the same time it increased taxes by $1,000 for 25 million American middle-class families. On July 25, we held votes on those two plans. The Senate voted down the Republican plan on a bipartisan basis by a vote of 45 to 54. The Senate passed the Democrats' plan by a vote of 51 to 48.

Since then, the House of Representatives also voted on this matter and the House sent the Senate its revenue measure. Now that we have had the debate and the votes, it is time to go to conference with the House. The Senate has voted and so has the House. It is time for us to resolve our differences. We believe the tax extenders should not apply to people making more than $250,000 a year. We should extend them for people making less than $250,000 a year. So let's have a conference on this. This process would be important.

Unfortunately, I am sorry to say, my Republican friends often place roadblocks in the way of routine Senate business. This is simply routine. Just last week, Moody's said it would probably cut America's credit rating if congressional leaders couldn't reach an agreement to address the fiscal cliff and produce long-term deficit reduction. The bill the Senate passed in July is a big part of dealing with that fiscal cliff and the American people deserve their leaders to move to advance this legislation, and that is why I am going to ask the following consent, which is simply going to conference on a bill that has passed the House and a bill that has passed the Senate.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 502, H.R. 8; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 3412, a bill extending the tax cuts I have referred to in 2001, 2003, and 2009 for 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of all small businesses, which passed the Senate on July 25, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses; and the chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, consisting of the membership of the Finance Committee; with all of the above occurring with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I hope the Record can pick up the smile on my face. Why in the world--when the Senate has already acted, with a majority of the Senate saying we do not believe there should be taxes extended to the rich; that we believe in protecting the middle class-- would we agree to extending all these tax cuts? We can't do that. That was a bipartisan vote set out in the Senate. That was the Senate's position.

We are asking simply to go to conference on the Senate's position. The other side is insisting the minority position prevail. That is an unusual situation and that is not the way democracy in America works. So I would not accept his modification to my request.

It would be 60 minutes on the amendment, equally divided between Senator Kerry and Senator Paul. If the Senator wants more time, and we are not doing much now, we could have more time.

Mr. President, it would seem to me that the Senator's concern should be directed toward Senator Paul, not me. It sounds to me he may vote against the Paul amendment from what I have heard. If he is that concerned about it, I think we should get it up, and if we want more time, we could have more time on it. But at this stage, no amendments would be called for, and I think we should vote on the Paul amendment.

I think it is pretty clear as to what has gone on this past Congress. When the Republican leader says his No. 1 issue is to make sure Obama doesn't get reelected, I think that probably is what has held up this Congress from doing all kinds of things.

Now, let me rewind. Since I have been the majority leader--which has been 6 years--we have had to try to overcome 380 Republican filibusters. This is two now. During the same period of time--6 years-- that Lyndon Johnson was President--and he was majority leader before he became President--he had to file cloture once.

My friend from Arizona and I have served together now 30 years in the Congress. His agitation should not be directed toward me. They are the ones holding up hundreds of bills in the Energy Committee and basically everything we have tried to do because their No. 1 goal, if they follow their leader--and they have done a pretty good job doing that--has been to make sure the country is in such a shape that maybe they may get lucky and have Governor Romney elected.

So if there is going to be objection by the assistant majority leader, I understand that. But don't be blaming Rand Paul for everything being held up.

Here is what we have held up, and I will mention it just briefly. Wouldn't it be nice if America had an ambassador to Iraq? Wouldn't it be nice if America had an ambassador to Pakistan? Wouldn't it be nice if a piece of legislation that has 81 cosponsors dealing with the Iran containment resolution, that we could vote on that?

So as I have indicated--and this will be the third time today--we have work to do--not a lot but we have work to do. One is to pass the continuing resolution, and we will do that. We can either do it the hard way or the easy way. As you know from the vote on the motion to proceed to that, there is overwhelming support for that. That is as bipartisan as anything could be. The Speaker and I worked on this with our staffs, and we came up with something I think is pretty fair. So we are going to pass that. If the Republicans want to stall on that like they have on everything else, they can do that. But we are going to finish this.

The American people need that done, and we are going to get it done. It may take a vote on Saturday, it may take one on Sunday, but we are going to finish the CR. So everybody should understand we are not going anyplace. My No. 1 place to go is the Senate. That is my life, the Senate. So I am going to be here and make sure that we do as much of the people's business as we can, in spite of their No. 1 goal being to defeat Obama rather than trying to legislate for the American people.

As I understand it, the request that I made has been objected to, and the request of the Senator from Arizona has been objected to; is that right?

So we have dual objections.

Mr. President, last month the Senate Finance Committee reported bipartisan legislation on what are called the tax extenders.

The Finance Committee tax extender legislation addresses a significant part of the so-called fiscal cliff. The Finance Committee bill would extend relief from the alternative minimum tax through 2013. It would extend tax incentives for renewable energy and energy conservation through 2013, and it would extend through 2013 the traditional extenders, among which are the R&D tax credit, the State and local sales tax deduction, and the tuition deduction.

The Finance Committee reported that bill with a strong bipartisan vote of 19 to 5. The bill cuts taxes by $205 billion. It cuts taxes by $143 billion in fiscal year 2013 alone. Passing this bill today would help remove some of the uncertainties surrounding tax policy. Passing this bill today would help our economy. Passing this bill is the least we should do now.

So I ask unanimous consent the Senate Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 9; that a Baucus amendment, which is at the desk, the text of which is identical to S. 3251, the Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012 as reported by the Finance Committee, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be placed in the Record at the appropriate place as if read.

Mr. President, we have already reached that position. That is not how things work in a democracy or, I doubt, anyplace else. So I object to my friend's suggested modification.

Sure.

Mr. President, to my friend--and he is my friend for whom I have admiration and respect--the senior Senator from Arizona makes my case. He is absolutely right. This is, I am sorry to say, the least productive Congress perhaps ever. Why? Because everything we have tried to do they have objected to. Everything.

Once in a while we are able to work together to get something done, but he has made my case for me, absolutely, because their No. 1 goal has been to defeat the President of the United States for reelection.

Now, we have had a lot of debates. Senator Paul has been here many times talking about this issue. I have no lock on wisdom around here. There are a lot of people who have much more wisdom than I do. But I do have the obligation to try to move legislation along on things that we have to work on here. If people want more time on this, fine. I have worked with Senator Paul. He has agreed to this. If there are some reasonable changes, I will agree to those. I am not locked in. But whoever wants to do this, I would suggest they go to Senator Paul, not to me. I am happy to be a conduit to try to get something done that is reasonable and fair.

If an hour is too short, we haven't been doing much today, there is plenty of time to debate legislation. So I am happy to do that.

Mr. President, I understand the rules of the Senate fairly well. This is not the first time a Senator has held things up. I came here during the days of the Senator from Ohio, Howard Metzenbaum, and he was pretty good at slowing things down and holding things up. Jesse Helms was really good at it, and we have had a number of others.

So as I have said on the Senate floor, I think we should change some rules around here. I am not for getting rid of the filibuster. I don't want to get rid of the filibuster, but we need to change the filibuster rule. Why should we have, on every piece of legislation, a motion to proceed? It takes the Senate a week to get on a bill when a single Senator objects to it. That doesn't sound very good to me.

I hope with a new Congress we can change some of the rules around here. But I am happy to work with my friend from Arizona. I know he is someone who travels the world. He has been in the forefront of changes that have taken place in this world. I understand his concern about this legislation.

If he has something else he thinks might work better than this, talk to Senator Paul. I am always reachable, any time of the night or day.

I will say this so it will save a lot of trouble for anybody. We are not going to have amendments to this. Amendment days are over. We have been blindsided many times on amendments.

I will be happy if my friend can come up with something that will allow maybe a side-by-side or something. I will be happy to do that. I am open to negotiations in any way that is reasonable. If someone does not want to contact Rand Paul, I will--if somebody feels awkward doing that, I do not. I feel totally free to talk to any Senator about anything. That is why I reached out to Rand Paul.

Mr. President, the reason I went into that is because my friend Senator McCain talked about how little we have accomplished. I didn't bring that up. I indicated why we have accomplished so little.

I also say to my two Republican friends who are on the floor--there are three actually--this: The resolution, a piece of legislation that Senator Paul is putting forward, I am not going to vote for it. Senator Paul knows that. Democrats are not going to vote for this. The problem is the Republicans are split, not us. They are split. Their own caucus is split on what to do with the Paul amendment, not us.

I am happy to work with everybody. I have conferred. I say to the Republican assistant leader, I talked to my leadership team this morning. I talked to my caucus today about this. Republicans have a caucus the same time we do and they knew, and they knew before the caucus because everybody knew, what was going on with this. It was no secret. I talked to Republican Senators before their caucus. This is no surprise.

The hour time I put was arbitrary. I acknowledge that. If somebody wants more time to debate this issue, I am fine. I don't care.

I appreciate my friends' involvement, both of them.

Mr. President, first of all, I extend my appreciation to the senior Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley. He indicated he was going to say a few things about me and he told me beforehand, and I appreciate that. That is the way the Senate should operate. So I appreciate very much my friend from Iowa doing that.

He came to the floor and, in effect, said that I said--I have said it on a number of occasions, but he picked one date--that Governor Romney could not be confirmed as a Cabinet officer because to be a Cabinet officer, you have

to give at least 3 years of your tax returns. Sometimes they ask for more. So my friend Senator Grassley came to the floor and suggested he could be confirmed. Well, not really. The Senator from Iowa conceded my point. Mitt Romney could not be confirmed for Treasury Secretary. He could not be confirmed as Secretary of Health and Human Services. He could not be confirmed as Trade Representative. He could not even be confirmed as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Public Affairs and a number of other positions.

But there is a larger point to be made here. And why they would bring this up again I do not know, but they did. But there is a larger point to be made here. When you are running for the highest office in the land--President of the United States--you are also held to a higher standard of conduct than someone who wants to be a Cabinet officer or sub-Cabinet officer who gives us their tax returns.

The least Mitt Romney owes the American people--the least he owes them--is some honesty and openness. That we do not have.

The Senator from Iowa is correct about one thing--and this is what he said: The contents of a candidate's taxes do speak volumes about his character. That is what Senator Grassley said, and I agree with him.

Let's not forget, Mitt Romney could solve this problem tomorrow-- tonight--by releasing his tax returns, which he refuses to do. Why?

Madam President, I rise today to speak about important issues facing us as we work to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program, the TANF Program. Poverty has risen to a crisis level in our country. In 2011 there were 16.1 million children in families with incomes below the poverty level.

The pernicious effects of poverty have implications for children's health, education, and well-being. Research has demonstrated that there are significant associations between poverty and problems with children's health, cognitive development, behavior, emotional well- being, and school achievement. These problems are exacerbated for families in extreme poverty, where the annual income is less than half of the poverty level. In 2011 there were over 7 million children in the United States living in extreme poverty.

Poverty is also a risk factor for child abuse and neglect. Data assembled by the Center for Law and Social Policy reveals that poverty is the single best predictor of child maltreatment. Children living in families with annual incomes below $15,000 were 22 times more likely to be abused or neglected than those living in families with annual incomes of $30,000 or more.

According to a report from the Children's Defense Fund, ``Children of color continue to suffer disproportionately from poverty.'' The Children's Defense Fund cites data showing that more than one in three African-American children and more than one in three Hispanic children were poor in 2011, compared to a 1-in-8 ratio among White non-Hispanic children.

These families face huge challenges navigating the bare necessities of daily life. Fresh healthy food can be rare. Unsafe housing contributes to chronic child health issues such as asthma. Transportation to and from work, the grocery store, and the doctor can be infrequent and unreliable.

Programs funded through TANF--the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program--provide cash assistance to families struggling in deep and persistent poverty. TANF is a block grant to States for their use in ending dependence on government benefits and, more broadly, to promote child well-being. TANF Programs can also provide work support such as transportation assistance and childcare for families working to get themselves out of poverty and into decent-paying jobs. In addition to safety net and work support programs, TANF also funds a number of child welfare programs that, when effective, reduce the number of children in foster care and help keep families together.

When TANF was enacted, many States used the funding stream in an effort to move welfare recipients into work. However, over time the focus of TANF in many of these States has shifted from working with job-ready adults to a funding stream largely dedicated to funding purposes unconnected to job readiness.

For many years I have expressed concern that nationwide over 50 percent of able-bodied adults receiving cash assistance are reported to engage in zero hours of work-related activity. Additionally, I have raised concerns that most States are not able to meet the Federal work- participation rate. This work-participation rate requires that a State engage half of its cash assistance caseload in specified work-related activities for a certain number of hours each week.

If you ask the average middle-class American how many able-bodied adults receiving welfare should be engaged in work or work-related activities, my guess is the answer would be all of them. It should be shocking to the American people that most States are not able to engage half of their welfare caseloads in such activities.

Furthermore, I have raised concerns that there is a considerable amount of TANF spending on child welfare programs that goes unaccounted for and is not coordinated with possibly duplicative spending administered by State child welfare agencies.

Authority for TANF expired at the end of 2010. Unfortunately, although this is a matter of serious concern, the Obama administration has never proposed a 5-year reauthorization of the TANF Program. Instead, on July 12, 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services released a document, which they inaccurately described as an ``Information Memorandum,'' to the States claiming on behalf of the Obama administration unprecedented waiver authority over TANF work rules.

This action provoked a swift and strong condemnation from members of the legislative branch and rightly so.

Many Members of Congress believe the welfare waiver document constitutes an excessive and unwarranted overreach on the part of the executive branch. The Government Accountability Office agreed with us and has determined that the July 12, 2012, document is, in fact, a rule as defined by the Administrative Procedures Act and as such should have been submitted to Congress for review.

Since the welfare waiver is considered a rule, like all rules, it is subject to a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act. The Senate Parliamentarian agrees with the GAO, and she has advised that for purposes of the CRA, that is, the Congressional Review Act, this rule should be considered to have been received by Congress on September 10, 2012, even though the administration failed to submit it as required by law.

The CRA provides the Senate with a procedure for expedited consideration and a vote on a resolution of disapproval during a certain window of time so long as at least 30 Senators have signed a discharge petition to bring the resolution to the floor. I have introduced such a resolution, S.J. Res. 50, which provides for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Department of Health and Human Services relating to the authority to waive Federal welfare work requirements under section 407 of the Social Security Act. Having introduced it within the required timeframe under the CRA and having obtained enough signatures on a discharge petition, it is within my rights as a Senator to call for a vote on my resolution prior to the Senate's adjournment this year.

Now, I am not naive, nor am I overly idealistic. I am well aware that the vote on S.J. Res. 50 would likely fall along party lines, and this is disappointing. It is clear that the administration's purpose in granting themselves this waiver authority is to undermine a work-first approach to getting welfare recipients or clients off the rolls. This has been the desire of many critics of Clinton-era welfare reforms since they were enacted.

The administration has not been forthcoming at all about what they want to substitute for a work-first approach. In the past, absent strong Federal performance standards, States have allowed activities such as journaling, exercise, or assisting a neighbor, just to name a few, to count as work for the purposes of welfare eligibility.

Here is why I have such a problem with this shift in policy: I believe most people receiving welfare are unhappy with their situation and want to be able to work. Even with assistance, families trying to survive on cash-assistance welfare are living in desperately impoverished circumstances. The reasons some families have to go on welfare can be, of course, complicated. Many adults on welfare struggle with mental health and substance abuse issues. These barriers to work prevent adults on welfare from having work-readiness skills. Additionally, inactivity and the lack of attachment to the workforce can exacerbate mental health and self-medicating tendencies and create a downward spiral for these families, and it can be very hard to reverse course.

Over the years, research has consistently revealed that a work-first approach to welfare, combining an intense effort to engage recipients in work-related activities to foster an attachment to work with a blended array of work supports, such as education and training, has the greatest degree of success in getting clients off of welfare.

The reason I am so vehemently opposed to the administration's scheme to undermine the welfare work requirements is that I believe it will hinder, not help, the effort to get adults off welfare and into the workforce. Put simply, allowing activities that are not work to count as work will not get people off welfare.

The administration and their apologists have not even tried to make a policy case for their non-work-first approach. Instead, apologists of the administration's welfare waiver rule generally attempt to obfuscate and distract from the fact that the Obama administration granted themselves waiver authority to bypass the legislative branch with the goal of weakening welfare requirements.

Let's take a look at some of their arguments. Right out of the gates, supporters of the administration's policy argue that members of the legislative branch asserting their rights in the face of executive overreach were simply trying to give the Romney-Ryan campaign an issue.

Well, in case anyone hasn't heard, the country recently held an election, and President Obama was reelected. There is no longer a Romney-Ryan campaign, so that distraction falls away.

Apologists of the executive overreach have also tried to muddy the issue by suggesting that the administration is giving the States what they asked for. For example--and I take this a little personally--in an effort to create a false justification for their power grab, the Obama administration has repeatedly misrepresented the views of the State of Utah. It is true that when asked by the administration what they wanted in a TANF reauthorization, some States indicated the desire for more flexibility, but there was never any indication that the States wanted the administration to go around Congress to provide this flexibility.

According to the Government Accountability Office, between 2000 and 2009--during the Clinton, Bush, and even the Obama administration--HHS consistently told States that they had no waiver authority under TANF. So States naturally and rightly assumed that any requests for waivers would have to go through Congress. This is evidenced by the fact that in the 6 months since HHS granted itself authority to waive welfare work requirements, not a single State has applied for one of these waivers. In other words, any argument that the need for State flexibility is so urgent that the administration had to bypass Congress to give it falls by the wayside. Once again, we see a distraction crumble under the weight of the facts.

Another distraction raised by supporters of the administration is comments from a former House Ways and Means staffer to the press indicating that he thought additional flexibility for States might not be a bad idea. Of course, this same staffer also said that unilaterally establishing these waivers without consulting Congress was not the way to go. If that is the best expert opinion supporters of the administration can come up with to support this shift in policy, they have clearly failed to make their case.

Once we cut through all of these distractions the administration and its allies have tried to throw in our path, we are left again with the heart of the matter. The Obama administration is trying to bypass Congress and enact policies that are not provided for under current law. Whether or not one agrees with the administration's change in policy, that simple fact remains and we ought to stand up for the prerogatives of the legislative branch. That is why we have three separate branches of government, so that we have some checks and some balances in our society.

As a Member of the Senate, I simply cannot stand by and watch the administration undermine the relevance of the legislative branch. I cannot stand by and see Members of the House of Representatives who have worked for years to develop expertise on welfare policy turned into potted plants.

But there is more than one way to stand up for the U.S. Congress. The country has been through an exhaustive and highly partisan election. Some call it a status quo election. The country has elected a Democrat to the White House and sent back a divided Congress. No one side can claim a mandate, in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of most people. What the American people want is for Democrats and Republicans and the President to work together to get things done for the American people, and get things done right for the American people. One of the things we need to get done is a comprehensive overhaul and reauthorization of TANF. Welfare-work requirements need to be updated and strengthened, certain loopholes need to be closed, and there must be increased transparency and accountability relative to TANF spending on child welfare programs and services.

In order to begin bringing all sides together, particularly after such an acrimonious political period, someone must make the first move. Therefore, as an act of good faith, in order to facilitate a collegial bipartisan working

relationship on TANF, I am putting my colleagues on notice that earlier today I sent President Obama a letter informing him that I will not insist on a vote on my resolution of disapproval during this session of Congress. In the spirit of compromise and bipartisanship, I have asked President Obama to respond to my action by instructing Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to withdraw the welfare waiver rule and submit a 5-year TANF reauthorization proposal to the Congress. If there are aspects of the welfare waiver rule the administration wishes us to consider, I hope they will include them in their proposal so they can be debated and negotiated here in Congress.

I have written to the President and told him I am committed to working with his administration as well as Chairman Camp and Chairman Baucus to enact comprehensive and meaningful welfare reauthorization early on in the 113th Congress. I made this offer to President Obama with good will and in good faith. However, if the President rebuffs my overture, the Congressional Review Act will afford me this opportunity for another vote on a resolution of disapproval next year. This is because even if the Senate meets in legislative session every day until January 3--including Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, New Year's Eve, New Year's Day, and all weekends--there will not have been 60 session days between the date the welfare waiver rule is deemed to have been submitted to the Senate and the convening of the 113th Congress. Since the 112th Congress will end before the full 60-session-day period has elapsed, the Congressional Review Act provides for another 60-day period to act on a disapproval resolution regarding this rule in 2013. I hope it doesn't come to that. Therefore, if President Obama does not withdraw the welfare waiver rule, submit a 5-year TANF reauthorization plan, and then work with Congress to enact meaningful, comprehensive welfare reform that strengthens work requirements and provides for improved accountability of TANF spending, I will be right back here in a few months exercising my right to demand a vote on a new resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act.

I sincerely hope it does not come to that. As my colleagues know, I have a long history of forging bipartisan compromises on welfare, among many other things. I was a key player during the 1996 consideration of welfare reform that was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Democratic President. In 2002, Senator Breaux and I worked with Republicans and Democrats to draft the so-called ``tripartisan'' agreement on welfare reauthorization. I stand willing to work again on a bipartisan basis on this important issue at this most critical time.

As Members of Congress, I believe we have a moral obligation to do what we can to help those facing staggering challenges and deep and persistent poverty. We can begin to meet this moral obligation by strengthening and improving the TANF Programs for the working poor, the middle class, and children in the child welfare system.

In America today we have women who take their children with them rummaging through trash cans, hoping to find discarded soda cans so they can sell them back to stores. In America today we have families who every month must make painful decisions about whether to buy food or medicine or whether to pay to heat their home or put gas in their car. Many single moms have no good choices when it comes to providing childcare for their children while they attempt to find work. I can think of no group of Americans more deserving of having the Senate's time and attention directed toward crafting policies designed to help improve their lives.

If my colleagues look over my past 36 years, I have been there for these Americans. I was there in enacting TANF. I was there on a number of child welfare programs. I was there on the Child Care and Development Block Grant. I was there on the Americans With Disabilities Act, and countless other bills. These bills I worked on have helped to make a difference.

But I am concerned that increasingly, we are becoming a welfare society. A lot of people aren't going to go to work, and every time, every quarter, we find more and more people who won't even look for a job anymore. That is not the way to run a great country. That is not the way to help people to be self-sufficient, it is not the way to help people to be self-reliant, and it is not the way to keep a country great.

This is an important issue. I believe everybody in the Senate ought to stand up for the rights of the Congress. And I believe the President can show great good will here if he would do what I have suggested, which I think my Democratic colleagues would appreciate as well, and that is send up the 5-year reauthorization of TANF and of course withdraw that particular approach toward waivers that literally should not ever be granted without congressional consent. I think the President would come a long way by doing that and it would mean a lot to me personally. Let's hope we can get the President to consider these remarks this day because they have been delivered in good faith, hoping we will find solutions to these problems and, above all, hoping we can help our people.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, the Senate is sort of wrapping up its business, if you will, until after the election. It is ironic, in a way, that there are so many big issues in front of us as a nation--so many challenges--yet we are talking about things I am sure are important, but, once again, we are punting, kicking the can down the road on all the big crises in front of us as a nation.

I have to say that never before has a President and a Senate done so little when the Nation's challenges are so great. People have talked about the fiscal cliff repeatedly, and people have talked about the fiscal crisis in which we find ourselves in terms that I think ought to frighten all Americans. It certainly ought to frighten Members of Congress when we talk about the most predictable crisis in American history, probably in human history. It is not like it is any surprise what is going to happen. We are repeatedly reminded by all of the experts that if we don't deal with this issue of the fiscal cliff, it will have devastating, catastrophic impacts on our economy, on our national security, on our country, and on the American people. Yet we are not addressing it and doing what we should be doing to avert the disaster ahead of us, the fiscal cliff that faces us on January 1 of this next year.

It is not as though there isn't already a lot of evidence that we have big problems. We just crossed the $16 trillion level in terms of our debt. We have added over $1 trillion of debt every single year now for the past 4 years, since President Obama has taken office. That is $50,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. Everybody in America--man, woman, or child--now has $50,000 as their share of Federal debt. So it is a fiscal crisis unlike anything we have seen before, and it has, as I said, been predicted.

The Congressional Budget Office has said if we don't deal with the fiscal cliff, it will plunge the economy into recession. They have suggested that it will reduce by 2.9 percent the size of the economy. We actually will have a contraction of the economy in the first 6 months of next year.

They have also projected it will drive unemployment above 9 percent. Granted, we are over 8 percent today. We have been at 8 percent now for 43 consecutive months. That is the longest stretch in history. In fact, if we go back to the time the Bureau of Labor Statistics started keeping unemployment data and we add up the data for the 11 Presidents from Harry Truman through the end of the George W. Bush administration--about 60 years--there were 39 months where the unemployment rate exceeded 8 percent. That is 11 Presidents in about 60 years of history where we have had unemployment above 8 percent.

We have now had unemployment above 8 percent for 43 consecutive months. So 39 months in the first 60 years since they started keeping data, and 43 months now in a row under the current administration.

We have the Federal Reserve telling us if we don't deal with our fiscal crisis, the economy is going to soften next year.

We have ratings agencies such as Moody's suggesting that if we don't have a plan in place not only to deal with the sequestration that is going to occur at the end of the year in a way that is paid for but also to deal with the longer, structural problem--the debt and deficits crisis we have in this country--we are facing a downgrade in our credit rating.

You had the World Economic Forum come out just recently with their assessment about the world's most competitive economies. Back in January of 2009 when President Obama took office, the World Economic Forum found that the United States had the No. 1 most competitive economy in the world. In terms of global competitiveness, the United States was ranked No. 1. Now we have dropped. We had dropped to fifth, and this year, just recently, as I mentioned, when they came out with their current rankings, the United States had dropped down to seventh. So in a short 4-year timespan, we have gone from first in terms of global competitiveness down to seventh. That does not speak well for the steps that are being taken here in this country to make America competitive in the global economy, to deal with the problems of spending and debt and the fiscal cliff that is ahead of us.

It is interesting to note that at the World Economic Forum--what did they point to in terms of their analysis?

Why did they come to the conclusion that the United States had fallen from first in January of 2009 when the President took office to seventh here this year? Well, they pointed out spending, debt, taxes, regulations, redtape--all the things that come from Washington, DC; all the things that are controlled by policies here in Washington; the regulations that continue to spin out of various government agencies that drive up the cost of doing business in this country, that make us less competitive; the higher taxes that are being assessed on our economy in so many different ways; and, of course, all the taxes that are going to take hold, take effect as part of ObamaCare, the health care law that was passed a couple years ago, that begin to kick in. So you are going to have higher taxes. You have the redtape associated with doing business in this country and the bureaucracies, the mandates, the requirements that are imposed on our small businesses and our job creators. And then, of course, as I said, you have this massive amount of debt that hangs like a cloud over our economy. These are all factors that contribute to this assessment that has basically downgraded the United States from the No. 1 position in terms of global competitiveness to No. 7.

So the question before the house is, What can we do? What should we be doing to avert that crisis? Well, it strikes me, at least, that it starts with having a plan and working together, having the President step forward with a plan that would make sure our economy does not go into a recession next year; that makes sure the defense cuts that would occur under the sequester--which are terribly disproportionate relative to the size of the defense budget as a percentage of our total budget-- do not harm our national security interests; figure out ways to solve that problem; reduce spending in other areas to redistribute the cuts. Defense represents only 20 percent of the entire budget, but it gets 50 percent of the cuts under this across-the-board sequester that would take effect on January 1 of next year.

Our national security experts and our military leadership have said that if these cuts take effect, we will have the smallest Army since the beginning of World War II. You have to go back to 1940 to find a time when we would have had an Army that is that small. You have to go back to 1915, before World War I, to find a time when we would have had a Navy that is as small as it will be if these cuts take effect in the number of ships we have at our disposal. And we would have the smallest Air Force, literally, in the history of the Air Force.

That is what our military leadership is telling us will happen if these devastating cuts take effect. You have had the Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, the President's own Secretary, say that this would be catastrophic, that these cuts would be disastrous. You have the service chiefs saying the very same thing.

So we have all this right in front of us, staring us in the face, and instead of dealing with that crisis we are putting bills on the floor that really do not have near the consequence--as I said, I am sure important; I am not denigrating at all any of the legislation the Senate is considering, but it seems to be right now geared a lot more toward the election than it is about saving the country and doing the things that are necessary to avoid this cliff that is ahead of us and all the disastrous consequences that come with it.

Now, just again, a point of fact, and I mentioned this before. We have had now 43 months of 8 percent unemployment or above. We have 23 million Americans who are either unemployed or underemployed. We have seen that the data continues to suggest how sluggish our economy is, the impact it is having on the middle class in this country. In fact, middle-class Americans are continually hit by continued bad news.

You start with the fact that since President Obama took office, average incomes have gone down almost $4,000. Added on top of that is the fact that fuel prices have literally doubled in that timeframe--now more than doubled. In fact, we hit, in the month of September--this month--the highest fuel prices ever for the month of September. That is a cost that is borne by middle-class Americans. One of the biggest costs, biggest expenses in their lives is dealing with getting their kids to and from school, getting to work, taking care of the day-to-day activities for which they are responsible. The cost of fuel is a very important pocketbook issue for middle-class Americans. Then you have news the Kaiser Foundation came out with that says health care premiums have gone up by 29 percent. That is despite all the assertions when ObamaCare was being debated that it would drive health care costs down. In fact, the President, as he campaigned for office 4 years ago, talked about bringing the premium for an average family down by $2,500. Well, the opposite has happened. According to the Kaiser Foundation, health insurance costs have gone up by 29 percent. Instead of coming down by $2,500 for the average family, they have gone up by over $3,000 for the average family. So whether it is health care costs, fuel costs, tuition costs, which, by the way, have gone up by 25 percent, or average incomes that have gone down, you see this worsening picture for average Americans. All of that will be dramatically complicated by what is going to happen on January 1 if we do not take action to avert that crisis.

What happens on January 1? As I mentioned, you have an across-the- board cut. It is across the board in the sense that everything gets hit, but not everything gets hit proportionately. Defense, as I said, gets 50 percent of the cuts although it represents only 20 percent of the budget. You are going to have all these cuts that take effect that hurt the national security budget and the jobs that go with that, but you also have taxes going up. Tax rates go up on January 1, which will absolutely devastate job creation in this country if they are allowed to take effect. In fact, the total amount of tax increases that will hit us on January 1, if Congress does not take action, over a 10- year period is about $5 trillion--about $5 trillion over a 10-year period in additional taxes.

Even if you say, as the President does, that you want taxes to go up just on people who make more than $200,000 a year or couples who make more than $250,000 a year, you are harming almost 1 million small businesses--the very people we are looking to to create the jobs to get the economy moving again--almost 1 million small businesses that file income tax returns. They are passthrough entities or flowthrough entities organized as subchapter S corporations or LLCs; therefore, they file their business income on their individual tax returns. And they would see their taxes go up--almost 1 million small businesses that represent 25 percent of the workforce, hire 25 percent of the workforce in this country. So that is a huge tax increase that is facing job creators in this country come January 1 of next year.

These are things on which the House, the Senate, and the President of the United States ought to be focused. Yet we are not getting that focus. In fact, it is hard to get even information from the President of the United States about how he would implement the sequestration proposal. We had passed legislation earlier this summer which he signed into law in August which required him to submit to the Congress a proposal for how he would implement sequestration. We finally, after a delay--he missed the deadline--received that last week, but, again, it lacks specificity, it lacks detail. Congress asked to have that on program, project specific areas, and we did not get that. So as a consequence, again, we are still operating without the information that is necessary to do something to replace that sequestration.

I have to say that the House of Representatives has attempted--they passed in their budget--in the subsequent reconciliation bill that went with it--a replacement for this sequestration so that we would not have this $\1/2\ trillion cut in our national security budget and all the attendant problems and risks that come with that. Yet that was not picked up, that was not acted on here in the Senate.

So, unfortunately, we are where we are, which is we are going into the election season now. We have not dealt with the across-the-board cuts, the sequestration. We have not dealt with the issue of taxes going up on January 1 on the people who create jobs in this country. For that reason, we have all

these analysts--independents analysts, government analysts--concluding the same thing; that is, we are headed for a train wreck. That is what we ought to be focused on right now.

Frankly, that is not going to happen unless we get some leadership from the President of the United States. We have to have the President engaged, involved in these discussions if we are going to try to solve this problem. I would hope the leadership here in the Senate would be a partner to that as well. I know there are Republicans here who have tried to get votes on ways to replace the sequestration or come up with a substitute for the defense cuts that it includes. We have tried and actually gotten some votes on actually extending the tax rates at the end of the year, but that was voted down here. But the Democratic leadership in the Senate has to be a party to discussions, as does the President of the United States, in order for us to do what is necessary to avert what we know is going to be a calamity come January 1 unless we change course.

As we begin to conclude this particular session of the Senate--I see that my colleague, the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Barrasso, who is a physician, a doctor, is here. I know he has spoken at great length about the impact of many of the policies that are coming out of Washington on our small businesses, on our middle class, and I certainly would want to give him an opportunity to make some observations about that as well. But I want to conclude by saying I hope that before this catastrophe hits us, we have the foresight and the willingness and the courage to take on these big issues. You cannot solve big issues in this city without leadership. It is going to take leadership from the President of the United States. It is going to take leadership in the Senate. As I stand here today, we have not seen that. We have not passed a budget in 3 years. We have not dealt with any of the long-term problems that are posed and raised by the fiscal cliff that hits us on January 1 of next year. I hope that changes. I hope to see that leadership. And I hope we can get this country back on track.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, today as I have done for days since we have been in session since we returned from our August break, I have been talking about the impact of the Ryan budget, which is now the Romney-Ryan budget, on America and what it would mean for our future. I take the floor today as I have in the past to talk about one aspect of it. In the past I have talked about impact on health care, on education, on the social safety net. Today I wish to talk about what the Romney-Ryan budget does to our infrastructure, to job training, to avenues to the middle class for people.

The real question the American people face this coming election is: Are we going to restore and rebuild the middle class or are we going to continue to shift even more and more of our wealth to just a few at the top at the expense of the middle class?

My Republican friends have made clear where they stand on this. They have done so when nearly every Republican in Congress voted in favor of the Ryan budget plan which Governor Romney embraced as ``marvelous.'' The very centerpiece of the Ryan budget is a dramatic shift of even more wealth to those at the top, huge tax cuts for the richest 2 percent. Those making more than $1 million a year would get an extra $394,000 a year in tax breaks under the Ryan budget. That is on top of the $265,000 they already have. That brings it up to well over $400,000, almost $500,000 a year they would get.

We keep hearing a lot of talk about entitlements for the poor. Governor Romney, when he talks about entitlements, always focuses on the poor. How about this. If you make over $1 million you are entitled to it. You will not hear him talk about that entitlement.

How do the Republicans in the Ryan budget pay for these huge tax cuts that total over $4.5 trillion over 10 years? The Romney-Ryan budget would partially offset the tax cuts by making deep, Draconian tax cuts that undergird the middle class and that are essential to the quality of life in this country--everything from education, student grants, loans, to highways, bridges, other infrastructure projects.

Last, the Romney-Ryan budget offsets big new tax cuts for those at the top by actually raising taxes on the middle class. Yes, you heard me, that is exactly right. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that under the Ryan plan, middle-class families with children would see their taxes go up on average by more than $2,000.

The bottom line is that the Ryan budget does not reduce the deficit. The savings they gain by slashing spending and raising taxes on the middle class basically go to offsetting the $4.5 trillion in new tax cuts, which, I just pointed out, go to the wealthiest Americans.

I think this shows you right here what would happen to the deficit. We always hear the talk about balancing

the budget. The truth is Representative Ryan and Mr. Romney are not interested in balancing the budget. Their plan would not balance the budget until 2040--28 years from now.

As I said earlier, Mr. Ryan is a true acolyte of former Vice President Cheney who, in an unguarded moment, said that deficits don't matter. That was Vice President Cheney. If you look at the debt piled up under the Bush years, you will see they didn't think deficits matter.

Look at this. Here is the debt held by the public under the Ryan budget from 2013 to just 2022, in the next 10 years. Look at the debt. The debt does not go down, it goes up. Where does this debt go? Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, that is where it goes.

Representative Ryan doubles down on the theory that if we give an even greater share of wealth to those at the top, it will magically trickle down, a theory that was tried under President George W. Bush. But in the years after those Bush tax cuts we know what happened to jobs in America--they plummeted in the years after George Bush and those tax cuts went into effect.

Today I want to focus specifically on the impact of the Romney-Ryan budget on our Nation's infrastructure and job training. Both, I believe, are crucial for the creation of middle-class jobs in a competitive global economy. Regrettably, the Ryan budget would be a devastating one-two punch to our Nation's economy and slash investment in infrastructure which would slash hundreds of thousands of well- paying jobs. It would radically reduce funding for job training, reducing opportunities for the unemployed to get retooled for jobs in sectors of the economy that are doing well, where they are needed.

The United States now competes in a global marketplace. To improve our competitiveness and to give our workers the education and skills they need to compete, both our public and private sectors must make a robust investment in infrastructure, education, and job training.

Overcrowded and crumbling roads, outdated waterways, other means of transportation and transport have a profoundly damaging effect on our economy. This increases the time and expense of moving goods, it hurts our global competitiveness, as I said, especially at a time when our rivals in the global marketplace are investing heavily in both infrastructure and job training.

Even maintaining our current levels of infrastructure investment will have negative consequences for our economy. That is if we just maintain what we have.

The American Society of Civil Engineers predicts that, if current trends continue, by 2020 our continuing infrastructure will result in 900,000 fewer jobs and $900 billion in lost economic growth.

This was the American Society of Civil Engineers in 2011. They said:

The deficiencies in America's roads, bridges and transit

systems cost American households and businesses roughly $130

billion, including approximately $97 billion in vehicle

operating costs,

You can read that to mean potholes and things that bang your car up.

--$32 billion in delays and travel time,

If you have been stuck in a lot of traffic.

--$1.2 billion in safety costs and $590 million in

environmental costs.

That is the Society of Civil Engineers. That is not part of the Democratic Party or any party. This is a nonpartisan economic look at what is happening in our infrastructure.

By slashing these investments to even lower levels, the Ryan budget will only make these problems worse, not better. In fact, the Ryan budget cuts transportation spending by one-third in the first year.

We are not talking about a little nip and a tuck on infrastructure. Here is the fiscal year 2012--enacted--transportation budget: $89 billion. The Ryan-Romney budget for next year, $57 billion. It is almost a one-third cut. Think what that would mean to the jobs in America. Think what it means to our crumbling infrastructure.

Then you have to compare how much we are investing in our infrastructure to what one of our biggest competitors, China, is doing. Here is China. As a percent of their gross domestic product, they are spending 9 percent of their GDP on infrastructure. Here is the United States. In 1960, when I was a college student working summer jobs, laying pavement and building bridges on the Interstate Highway System, we were spending 4 percent of our GDP on infrastructure. We are now down to 2.4 percent. And the Romney-Ryan budget would take that even lower.

So already our Federal investments in infrastructure are inadequate. For example, we have failed to bring the half-century-old Interstate Highway System into the 21st century. Again, the Romney-Ryan budget would make that even worse. The Romney budget would make deep cuts to funding for the Corps of Engineers which is already grossly underfunded and struggling to maintain a deteriorating waterway system so crucial for the movement of bulk goods, and, I might add, also crucial for flood control.

The Ryan budget would also take a meat axe to Federal funding for job training and education, America's pathway to the middle class. It would jeopardize vital job services for millions of Americans. Thirty-one million Americans got Federal help with their job searches last year-- help to write their resumes, prepare for interviews, information about the best jobs available in their local area, referrals to job openings. Several hundred thousand were also able to participate in job training under Federal programs. This gave these American workers the opportunity to compete for good jobs so they have a shot at the middle class. It created a steady supply of skilled workers for U.S. businesses, made their operations more productive, and it helped them to grow.

Think about it; several hundred thousand people out of work were able to participate in job training because of Federal programs. That is part of Mr. Romney's 47 percent that he says he doesn't care about, who are the takers in our society. No, no, Mr. Romney, they are not takers. These are people struggling to make a better life for themselves and their families. They want job training. They want better education. They want to upgrade their skills. They want to work. The Romney-Ryan budget would pull the rug out from underneath them and say: Tough luck, you are on your own. I don't think they should be on their own; they should be part of our American family.

Without sustained robust investments in quality infrastructure and well-trained workers, America will fall behind and job creation will suffer. This is a critical threat to the future of the middle class in our country.

In essence, the Ryan budget essentially rejects the very possibility that the Federal Government can act to spur economic growth, boost competitiveness, and create good middle-class jobs. But this flies in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. At critical junctures going back to the beginning of our Republic, the Federal Government has stepped up to the plate, acting decisively to spur economic growth, foster innovation, and help create jobs. In 1791, Alexander Hamilton presented to Congress his landmark Report on Manufactures, a set of Federal policies designed to strengthen the new Republic's economy by creating a network of roads and canals.

The most visionary 19th century advocate of Federal investments to spur economic growth was the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln. In 1862 he signed the Pacific Railway Act to finance construction of the transcontinental railroad, one of the great technological feats, by the way, of the 19th century. But Lincoln did more; he created the Department of Agriculture to modernize agriculture and distribute free land to farmers. As a proud graduate of Iowa State University, I also note Lincoln dramatically expanded access to higher education across the United States by signing into law the Land Grant College system. Taken together, these initiatives had a transformative impact on the U.S. economy.

It is humorous to imagine how today's Republicans would have reacted to Lincoln's agenda. What if Abraham Lincoln were to present this today to the tea party? He would not get anywhere.

Later, in the 1950s, there was another Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, who championed one of the greatest public works projects in our national history, construction of the

national highway system. A 1996 study concluded that the Interstate Highway System is an engine that has driven 40 years of unprecedented prosperity in America.

In recent times, the Federal Government has funded and spearheaded scientific discovery and innovation. The Department of Defense invented the Internet. It was Federal research that led to the invention of the global positioning satellite system. Any discussion of the Federal Government's historic role in discovery and innovation and job creation must acknowledge the staggering achievements of the National Institutes of Health. More than 80 Nobel Prizes have been awarded for NIH- supported research. So it is absurd to claim that the Federal Government cannot serve a positive and even profound role in boosting the economy and spurring innovation. But the Romney-Ryan budget demands that we permanently hobble the Federal Government. That is the Romney- Ryan budget. This negative, defeatist viewpoint is dead wrong, and the disinvestment it advocates will only send our country into a death spiral of stagnation and decline.

Going back to the 1930s, the American people have supported and strengthened a kind of unique American social contract. The social contract says a cardinal rule of government is to provide a ladder of opportunity so that every American can realistically aspire to the American dream. The Ryan budget would rip up that social contract.

Don't take my word for it. Former Reagan economic adviser Bruce Bartlett on the Ryan budget said this:

Distributionally, the Ryan plan is a monstrosity. The rich

would receive huge tax cuts while the social safety net would

be shredded to pay for them.

The Ryan budget rips up the social safety net, disinvests in our infrastructure, cuts funding for job training, cuts money for education, cuts money for health care. As I said, it is a negative, defeatist viewpoint that will set our country into a death spiral of stagnation and decline.

The Romney-Ryan budget would replace the unique American social contract that we have with a survival-of-the-fittest, winner-take-all philosophy that tells struggling, aspiring Americans and their communities: Tough luck, you are on your own.

I agree with former President Bill Clinton. We have two philosophies: the Romney Ryan budget--tough luck, you are on your own--or the other philosophy that we are all Americans and we are all in this together. We are all mutually supportive. We believe in a ladder, a ramp of opportunity, and, yes, we believe the Federal Government has a powerful role to play in making sure all Americans can aspire to the American dream. They can reach the middle class. They can achieve the highest of their potentialities and their abilities. That is the difference.

I think the American people need to know what is in the Ryan budget. One might say: Well, a budget is a budget.

A budget is a blueprint. Just as we build a building, we have to have a blueprint; a budget is a blueprint for the future of where we want to go. Communities have budgets, families have budgets, schools have budgets. We have a budget so we can plan. It represents where we want to be in the future. The Ryan budget is a blueprint for defeat and a death spiral into stagnation for America.

I believe the more the American people understand and know what is in that Ryan budget, the more they are going to turn it aside and say: No, we can do better than that in America. We need a budget that reflects our hopes and aspirations and our abilities as Americans to work together to achieve the American dream for all.

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

Mr. President, I am personally very grateful for the wonderful remarks of my colleague, the chairman of the Finance Committee, because I do not think any words could express how much Russ means to all of us. He is a wonderful man. He is a wonderful leader on the committee. He is honest. He is straightforward. He works with you. Frankly, we all think the world of him on our side as well. I just wish to compliment the distinguished chairman for his beautiful remarks about a tremendous person and the foster children he has worked with.

Russ is the epitome of greatness on the Senate Finance Committee and as a staff member of the Senate. So I wish to personally pay tribute to him and express my sorrow over the loss of his son AJ and express my love and affection for him. He is a good man, helping a good chairman. We work together very closely, and I have a lot of regard for what the chairman just said and a lot of regard for Russ and wish him the best.

I hope the Good Lord will comfort him and comfort his soul during this very trying time.

Mr. President, on July 12, 2012, the Obama administration's Department of Health and Human Services issued an Information Memorandum informing States that for the first time in the 16-year history of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program, HHS would permit them to waive welfare work requirements.

This action undermines a robust work-first approach that was one of the key features of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act.

If allowed to stand, this action could result in activities such as journaling, bed rest, and smoking cessation classes being counted as work for the purposes of meeting Federal welfare work performance standards.

This change in policy presents a serious substantive question. Should taxpayer dollars go to welfare recipients who are not working but are instead journaling or working to quit smoking?

But it presents serious institutional questions as well because the action by the Obama administration was, quite simply, a unilateral power grab that usurps the constitutional power of the legislative branch, and every Member of this body ought to be concerned about it. That is no small thing.

Our Constitution, for good reason, locates the lawmaking power in the Congress. That is because our Founding Fathers understood that in a republic of laws, the lawmakers must represent the people directly. The people must have a close hold on the representatives who create the laws under which we live.

If changes are going to be made to the welfare work requirements, it should be up to the Congress to make them. Faceless bureaucrats at HHS should not be the ones making changes to the welfare work requirements. Yet that is exactly what happened here.

Unelected bureaucrats at HHS are attempting to change the law--a law passed by the Senate and the whole Congress. If left unchecked, welfare policy is being substantially changed by the Obama administration in a way that never would have been acceptable to the people's elected representatives in Congress.

No administration should be permitted to disregard the laws Congress passed and simply make up their own rules.

For 16 years, no President, Health and Human Services Secretary or Governor--regardless of political party--believed welfare work requirements could be waived.

If the Obama administration believes welfare work requirements should be changed, they should submit a legislative proposal to Congress.

In the 3\1/2\ years before the July 12 information memorandum, the Obama administration never offered a legislative proposal to change the welfare work requirements.

The unprecedented nature of the Obama administration's power grab is supported by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office.

On September 4, 2012, the GAO responded to an inquiry from Ways and Means chairman Dave Camp and me.

They determined that the July 12 information memorandum was a rule that should have been submitted to Congress. GAO further found that as a rule, the information memorandum was subject to the Congressional Review Act. The Congressional Review Act provides Congress with an opportunity to review and, where appropriate, disapprove rules issued by the executive branch.

When more and more of the rules that govern the American people are being made by anonymous and unelected bureaucrats with no responsibility to reflect the priorities of the American people, the Congressional Review Act is a critical device and one we should always uphold. It allows the people's representatives in Congress to stand up and reject a rule emanating from the Federal bureaucracy.

The Committee on Ways and Means favorably reported the resolution of disapproval last week. The full House of Representatives will consider the resolution of disapproval this week. I have introduced S.J. Res. 50, a resolution of disapproval here in the Senate. I am pleased that my legislation is cosponsored by 21 of my colleagues.

The Congressional Review Act also provides for fast-track consideration of a resolution of disapproval when a Senator has secured at least 30 Senators on a discharge petition. That means no filibuster. I am pleased to report that I have well over 30 signatures on the discharge petition. Unfortunately, this expedited process does not kick in until later this month.

The Senate will be voting on my resolution, there is no question about that. The only question is when. In my view, we should take up this matter now. It is a critical issue for the American people, and it is a critical issue for this institution. As the people's representatives, it is a dereliction of duty to stand by while unelected officials attempt to change the law unilaterally without the constitutionally-prescribed input of the people's representatives in Congress. For that reason, in a few moments I will propound a unanimous consent request for debate, followed by a vote on proceeding to the resolution of disapproval. It is a simple request. A vote on the resolution of disapproval is inevitable. The only question is whether the majority will allow a vote in a timely manner.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of

S.J. Res. 50, a joint resolution disapproving a rule submitted by HHS regarding welfare waivers; that there be 2 hours of debate on the motion to proceed equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; and that the Senate then proceed to a vote on the adoption of the motion to proceed.

Madam President, I appreciate my colleague's remarks, much of which I agree with. That still does not negate the fact that the administration has acted unilaterally as the executive branch to usurp powers of the legislative branch. That is the issue. It is a very important issue. It is the responsibility of the Congress, not the President, to give the States flexibility with regard to the work requirement. The Constitution is pretty explicit on that.

GAO reported today that even though States had requested or inquired about waivers, no administration--not the Clinton administration, not the Bush administration, not the Obama administration--believed they had waiver authority; that is, until July 12 when HHS did this. I think they knew they were wrong.

The latest GAO report details how whenever States requested TANF waivers in the past, HHS responded that no such authority exists. Between 2000 and 2009, during the Clinton, Bush, and even Obama administrations, HHS has consistently told States they have no waiver authority. Specifically, GAO finds that at least five States asked HHS about TANF waivers during that period. In two of those cases, GAO said the HHS official response said they ``did not have authority to provide waivers.'' In the three other cases when States asked informally, GAO reports that HHS responded saying that ``the requested waiver authority was not available.''

Separately, in 2005 and 2007 HHS published two ``program instructions'' about flexibilities in TANF, both indicating that no waiver authority existed. In these instructions, HHS stated, ``We have no authority under current law to waive any of the TANF requirements'' and ``We have no authority to waive any of the provisions of the Act.'' Only the Obama administration has claimed the ``authority,'' circumventing Congress.

Look, this is not just a political issue, as the distinguished Senator from Maryland, one of my dear friends here, said. We both graduated from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. I have great admiration for him and great feelings toward him. But only the Obama administration has claimed this ``authority'' circumventing Congress. The latest GAO report highlights that only the Obama administration has claimed the authority to waive welfare work requirements. Further, GAO notes that this action by current HHS officials is in response to the President's February 2011

memorandum, which, according to subsequent administration guidance, solicited ``input on significant statutory barriers that could be addressed through waivers.''

Especially when viewed in the context of the President's ``we can't wait'' agenda, it is clear that this HHS proposal is part of an organized administration effort to circumvent Congress and its legislative authority. We have seen that time after time with an abusive use of Executive orders.

Look, TANF has worked amazingly well because of the work requirements in TANF. There is a good reason no other administration has tried to pull this type of a stunt.

Whether you agree with the administration or not, it seems to me we ought to first uphold the rights and powers of the legislative branch of government that cannot be circumvented just because a President wants to do something on his own. That is what is involved here. I think we ought to all stand, Democrats and Republicans, and say: Look, you are not going to be able to do this. If you want to do it, then you are going to have to do it through statutory changes or at least ask Congress for permission.

That is the purpose of asking for this vote which has been objected to. I guess we will do it during the lameduck session. But the purpose is to stand up for the rights of the Congress of the United States and especially the rights of the Senate that are being ignored.

There is a lot more I can say about it. That basically covers it. I appreciate my colleague's feelings on this matter, but to put it in the category that this is Mitt Romney trying something--Mitt Romney has had basically nothing to do with it other than he agrees with what we have done. He said that after we did it. He did not come to me and ask me to do it.

The fact is we are standing for the legislative prerogatives that we really ought to stand for and that the GAO said should be stood for because they declared it a rule. The GAO is not in the pockets of Republicans or Democrats; it is there to try to determine these types of issues that are extremely important legal issues, extremely important legislative issues, extremely important separation-of-powers issues. So that is what we are doing here, and it really shouldn't even be a political issue. We ought to just vote and let it go at that. But it has been objected to, and I am willing to wait until the appropriate time to have a vote.

If the Senator will yield, I certainly retract my statement on that. But I feel bad the Senator didn't graduate from the University of Pittsburgh, as I did.

Madam President, I would just add that if they want that type of authority, they should come to the Congress and ask for it because we put that authority subject to Congress's decisionmaking, and it shouldn't be done unilaterally by an out-of-control approach by the executive branch. That is what is involved, and it is important. Whether one is a Democrat or a Republican, we ought to have an understanding of the legislative and executive branches and our rights and prerogatives in Congress. There is nothing that says States can't add work requirements that are legitimate work requirements in the statute. They didn't need this type of unilateral decision by the HHS Department to do that. That is the point.