Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Save Our Postal Worker Jobs Act.

Even with advances in technology, America relies on the Postal Service

for everything from notes to family back home, birthday cards, medicine, tax returns and absentee voting. The Postal Service binds our nation together through communication. But the Postal Service is facing a financial crisis and it needs Congress to help.

The Save Our Postal Worker Jobs Act is simple. It doesn't restructure the Postal Service, lay off workers, or close Post Offices. It simply gives the Postal Service the authority it needs to take its own money-- not taxpayer money--that it overpaid into its employee pension funds to use to help pay its obligations.

This bill is a jobs bill. Many of the plans that have been introduced to keep the U.S. Postal Service financially solvent include provisions to lay off thousands of workers, cut promised benefits, and undermine collective bargaining rights. The Postal Service has talked about reducing its workforce by more than 200,000.

Our postal service employees are on the front lines every day, working hard for America. I want them to know that I am on their side, and I will not let them be scapegoated for financial problems at the Postal Service. Through the dedication and diligence of our postal workers, the mail is delivered across the country through rain or sleet or snow. It is their work that conveys messages to family, brings medicine to our veterans and seniors, and helps our constituents who are away from home on election day have their voices heard.

This bill is about preserving the local Post Office--an important part of a neighborhood's identity and a piece of the fabric of our communities. This bill is about preserving Postal Service delivery-- which is so important for rural areas like Western Maryland and the Eastern Shore. Each region has unique geography that can complicate or delay mail delivery. And reductions to the Postal Service could seriously harm those residents.

This bill alone will not solve all of the Postal Service's problems. The process of reforming the Postal Service and bringing it into the 21st Century may mean that some workers will be let go, some Post Offices may close, and some changes may be made to delivery.

Ultimately, this bill is about allowing those decisions to be thoughtfully considered, with time for the Americans who rely on the Postal Service to be heard. It's about avoiding making rash decisions with a crisis hanging over our heads.

It is about saving our postal workers' jobs.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Save Our Postal Worker Jobs Act.

Even with advances in technology, America relies on the Postal Service

for everything from notes to family back home, birthday cards, medicine, tax returns and absentee voting. The Postal Service binds our nation together through communication. But the Postal Service is facing a financial crisis and it needs Congress to help.

The Save Our Postal Worker Jobs Act is simple. It doesn't restructure the Postal Service, lay off workers, or close Post Offices. It simply gives the Postal Service the authority it needs to take its own money-- not taxpayer money--that it overpaid into its employee pension funds to use to help pay its obligations.

This bill is a jobs bill. Many of the plans that have been introduced to keep the U.S. Postal Service financially solvent include provisions to lay off thousands of workers, cut promised benefits, and undermine collective bargaining rights. The Postal Service has talked about reducing its workforce by more than 200,000.

Our postal service employees are on the front lines every day, working hard for America. I want them to know that I am on their side, and I will not let them be scapegoated for financial problems at the Postal Service. Through the dedication and diligence of our postal workers, the mail is delivered across the country through rain or sleet or snow. It is their work that conveys messages to family, brings medicine to our veterans and seniors, and helps our constituents who are away from home on election day have their voices heard.

This bill is about preserving the local Post Office--an important part of a neighborhood's identity and a piece of the fabric of our communities. This bill is about preserving Postal Service delivery-- which is so important for rural areas like Western Maryland and the Eastern Shore. Each region has unique geography that can complicate or delay mail delivery. And reductions to the Postal Service could seriously harm those residents.

This bill alone will not solve all of the Postal Service's problems. The process of reforming the Postal Service and bringing it into the 21st Century may mean that some workers will be let go, some Post Offices may close, and some changes may be made to delivery.

Ultimately, this bill is about allowing those decisions to be thoughtfully considered, with time for the Americans who rely on the Postal Service to be heard. It's about avoiding making rash decisions with a crisis hanging over our heads.

It is about saving our postal workers' jobs.

Madam President, today I recognize an outstanding public servant and longstanding resident of the great State of Maryland, Arthur W. Divens, Jr., as he completes more than 31 years of continuous service within the civilian leadership of the Department of Defense. Mr. Divens began his public service life in naval shipbuilding as a project engineer/contracting representative for the Military Sealift Command and is ending it as executive director for the Amphibious Warfare and Sealift Office, Program Executive Office, Ships, where he oversees one of the broadest acquisition portfolios in the Navy--including more than $30 billion in complex shipbuilding procurements. Highly respected throughout the DOD acquisition community as a visionary leader and a man of uncommon character, he has left a long and lasting legacy to our Nation--both through his unparalleled contributions to the strength and flexibility of our Navy's surface forces and through the generation of professionals that he has mentored throughout his time in Federal service. Today, it is my great pleasure to recognize his achievements and to thank him and his family for their service to the Navy and our Nation.

Mr. Divens has a long and distinguished career of innovative thinking and aggressive execution of shipbuilding programs across the entire spectrum of naval shipbuilding. He has been directly involved in the design, construction, or delivery of over 150 ships and over 1,000 small boats and craft, more than any other individual in the Department of the Navy. Since joining Federal service in 1980 and the Senior Executive Service in 2000, he has held a variety of key leadership roles throughout his professional life, including positions with the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, the Military Sealift Command, and the Naval Sea Systems Command. He has also provided strong leadership to groups such as the National Shipbuilding Research Program and the Marine Engineering and Shipyard Management Program, where he has worked tirelessly with his peers throughout government and industry to promote the open interchange of ideas and information and constantly improve shipbuilding and ship repair processes and technology.

In 2002, Mr. Divens joined the Program Executive Office, Ships, where he has played a critical role in defining and fielding our Navy's future Surface Fleet. During his tenure and as a result of his sound stewardship, 31 ships have been delivered to the U.S. Navy and our allies, including two first of class vessels--USS SAN ANTONIO (LPD 17) and USNS LEWIS AND CLARK (T-AKE 1)--and the amphibious assault ship USS MAKIN ISLAND (LHD 8), widely lauded for its revolutionary application of hybrid technology and integration of environmental efficiencies and fuel conservation initiatives in the earliest stages of ship design. In the past year, he has worked tirelessly with General Dynamics NASSCO to contract for three affordable and flexible mobile landing platforms, saving the Navy nearly $2.1 billion and preserving the shipbuilding capability of the Navy's only west coast shipyard. He has been an influential advisor to the LHA 8 analysis of alternatives which will result in a well deck ship configuration for the next Marine Corps large deck amphibious ship, and has worked to maximize competition in the Ship to Shore Connector Program, which will provide an unprecedented level of support to amphibious forces. He has been the central figure in some of the Navy's toughest negotiations involving nearly $10 billion in Navy shipbuilding funding, to include the award of LPD 22-26 and the LHA 6 amphibious assault ship, the joint high speed vessel competition, and the Landing Craft Air Cushion Service Life Extension Program. At the heart of his efforts has been a relentless drive to improve the strength, capability, and flexibility of our operating forces at the best possible value to the American public.

Mr. Divens is also responsible for more than 100 foreign military sales cases, with more than 30 nations and a collective value of nearly $2 billion. Of special note has been his direct effort with United States Forces--Iraq, helping Iraqi security forces develop the tools they need to defeat terrorism and sustain an environment where they can live free.

Mr. Divens' contributions to our Nation extend far beyond his material achievements and programmatic accomplishments. He has served as an inspiration to all who have served with him, ensuring that all members of his team are keenly aware of their importance to the Navy and the true appreciation that he holds for their efforts. His unique ability to recognize talent and to foster respect and camaraderie throughout the workforce has had an enormous influence on junior Sailors and civilians and will continue to steer the course of our Navy well into the future.

Mr. Divens received his bachelor of science degree from the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy in Kings Point, NY in 1979 and his master of science degree from the University of Maryland in 1997. Throughout his distinguished Federal service career, he has been honored with numerous awards for his exceptional service, including the Navy Distinguished Civilian Service Medal, the Meritorious Presidential Rank Award and, most recently, the Rear Admiral Wayne E. Meyer Memorial Award.

Mr. Divens' tireless leadership and lifelong commitment to the Navy's shipbuilding capability have earned him the deep respect of his peers and shipmates throughout the Navy acquisition and fleet support communities. It is, therefore, a pleasure to recognize him for his many contributions in a life devoted to our nation's security. I know my colleagues join me in wishing him, his wife Joan, his daughters Alison, Laura and Molly, and his grandson Daniel much happiness and fair winds and following seas as they begin a new chapter in their lives together.

Madam President, I rise in opposition to the amendment to the America Invents Act offered by the Senator from Oklahoma.

I, along with my fellow members of the Appropriations Committee, share the Senator from Oklahoma's goal of ensuring that all fees paid by inventors to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, are used only for the operations of the PTO. The PTO fosters American innovation and job creation by providing protections for ideas and products developed by our entrepreneurs, businesses and academic institutions.

As the chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee that funds the PTO, I have worked to ensure that PTO receives every dollar it collects from inventors. But, while I share the Senator's goal, I oppose his amendment for three reasons.

First, the amendment is unnecessary. It is a solution in search of a problem. The underlying America Invents Act before the Senate today ensures that PTO can keep and spend all of the fees collected. This legislation establishes a Patent and Trademark Fee Reserve Fund. Any fees collected in excess of annual appropriations would be deposited into the fund, and those fees would remain available until expended solely for PTO operations.

The creation of this fund is not a new idea. Provisions of several bills reported out of the Senate Appropriations Committee in prior years allowed PTO to keep and spend fee revenue in excess of appropriations levels. I can assure my colleagues that the committee will continue to support such language.

Second, the amendment would significantly reduce oversight of the PTO. The Senator from Oklahoma's amendment would establish a new, off- budget revolving fund for PTO fees. This would put the PTO on autopilot, without the oversight of an annual legislative vehicle to hold the agency accountable for progress and wise use of taxpayer funding.

Since fiscal year 2004, funding for PTO has increased by over 70 percent. At the same time, however, the backlog of patent applications has climbed to more than 700,000. It now takes over three years for PTO to make a decision on a patent application. This is unacceptable. While America's inventors are waiting in line, their ideas are being stolen by other countries.

Through annual appropriations bills, the Appropriations Committee has succeeded in forcing management reforms that have slowed the growth of PTO's backlogs and improved employee retention. While further accountability is needed, the America Invents Act keeps PTO on budget and on track for continued oversight by the Appropriations Committee each year.

Finally, the Senator's amendment could have unintended consequences. If PTO were permitted to operate on autopilot, the agency could face fee revenue shortfalls and the Appropriations Committee would not be poised to assist. The committee continually monitors the agency's fee projections to ensure the agency can operate effectively. It is not widely known, but over the past 6 years, PTO has actually collected nearly $200 million less than the appropriated levels.

In fact, I recently received a letter from the Director of the PTO informing my Subcommittee that fee estimates for fiscal year 2012 have already dropped by $88 million. I will ask consent to have this letter printed in the Record. If PTO was put on autopilot as proposed by the Senator's amendment, the committee would no longer have the tools to provide the necessary funding to keep our patent and trademark system operating should a severe funding gap occur.

The PTO's full access to fee revenue is critical to American innovation and job creation. I commend Chairman Leahy for his efforts to improve the patent system and ensure that PTO funding is spent wisely and effectively. I support the funding provisions of the America Invents Act and oppose the Coburn amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter to which I referred.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Senator Mark Hatfield. He was a true giant, a man who placed principle above politics--doing what he felt was right for the people of Oregon and the Nation.

Senator Hatfield's life was one of service. He served as a naval officer during World War II. He fought in the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Later, he was one of the first Americans to see the effects of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. He served in the Oregon state legislature, as secretary of state and Governor, and then as Senator of the United States.

In the Senate, Senator Hatfield was known for his many accomplishments for the people of Oregon. He used his position on the Appropriations Committee, where he became chairman, to bring jobs and opportunity to his State. One of his greatest legacies is in foreign policy, nuclear disarmament, and in the pursuit of peace. Senator Hatfield was one of the first in the Senate to oppose the Vietnam war. He was a leader in the pursuit of nuclear disarmament, and he was a steadfast supporter of civil rights.

I was honored to serve with Senator Hatfield in the Senate and on the Appropriations Committee. We were neighbors on the 7th floor of the Hart Building. We worked together on many important issues, especially on international women's rights. As coastal Senators, we also worked together on jobs that affected both of our States--everything from fishery issues to saving jobs in the shrinking shipbuilding industry.

Senator Hatfield was a man of deep faith, known for putting his values into action. He was also a gentleman who accomplished so much for his State and his Nation. He will be greatly missed.

Mr. President, through serious negotiation, leaders from both parties and the President have reached a bipartisan solution that will lift our debt ceiling and prevent a downgrade of our credit.

Make no mistake, this agreement is stark and stern but necessary. It includes cuts that I would have never voted for under different circumstances. However, if we fail to take action, the economy will be irrevocably fractured.

While it is far from perfect, the agreement meets my principles for avoiding default and downgrade. It provides a long-term extension of the debt ceiling, a significant downpayment on cuts, and a path forward to reform tax earmarks and entitlements.

The consequences of a default and downgrade would be significant and severe and would alter the course of the United States for a century. Default would have led to sky-high interest rates that would have created a new tax on every single American. It means if you have a variable rate mortgage, it would skyrocket. If you have a student loan, the interest would increase. And if you have a car loan, the payments would be greater.

Under default, the President would also have to prioritize what obligations to pay. First, we would have to pay our troops. Then we would have to meet our obligations to seniors and veterans. Federal funding for State and local governments would run out. This would affect infrastructure projects, funding for schools and teachers and firehouses and police stations. Contractors who work for the Federal Government would face layoffs without pay, and businesses would reduce hiring. The economy would be further weakened, and it would be a self- inflicted wound. I could not allow this to happen.

I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. The 14th amendment says that the validity of America's debt must not be questioned. While the lawyers made the interpretation complicated, the framers made it simple. America pays its debt with no exceptions. Failure to reach an agreement would be a violation of the American people and our creditors' trust. And it would have violated my oath to the Constitution.

America must meet its obligations to its creditors. We must also meet our obligations to each other. Throughout this debate, I have insisted on no benefit cuts to soldiers, seniors, and veterans, and I will continue to do so. Obligations made must be obligations kept.

I will also fight to fulfill our obligations to the next generation who will lead us through the 21st century. We can't cut our way to a new economy. We need to invest in it by rebuilding roads, bridges, and increasing access to broadband. This is what will lead to new jobs, new opportunity, and new prosperity.

We also need to invest in education, science, research and technology. These investments will lead to jobs of the future and prepare students and workers to compete in a global economy. This means making sure kids have access to higher or career education. It means supporting scientists who are finding cures for the most devastating diseases. And it means giving businesses the tools they need to develop new products. We can't afford not to make these investments.

After wrenching analysis, I will vote for this bipartisan agreement because it is an achievable and pragmatic solution to the crisis that would be caused by inaction. It will require tough action and strong medicine down the road, but it is necessary to honor our obligations to the greatest generation and the next generation.

Madam President, I rise to speak on the Reid amendment.

First of all, I am sorry we are engaged in a filibuster. We are using parliamentary procedure in a way that only delays us taking votes. We are days away from default. We are days away from our bond rating being downgraded. If we fail to raise the debt limit, the United States of America will be irrevocably fractured. We cannot fail and we cannot falter. We must act, and we must act tonight.

Last night, the Senate rejected the Boehner plan because it wasn't a solution. It would lead us over the cliff because it did not meet certain tests. If the Republicans force us into default or downgrade, it will be the biggest tax increase on Americans. When interest rates go sky high, it will be a tax on Americans.

We know that we have to agree to additional spending cuts, but it has got to be long term. We have to have a path forward for eliminating tax earmarks and entitlement reform that does not lead to a stampede to shrink Social Security benefits or to raise the Medicare age.

Mr. Boehner took it upon himself last week to come up with a solution. He told the President he--Mr. Boehner--was the guy to do it. Well, he didn't succeed. His proposal was failed leadership and failed economics because it did not meet the threat to our economy from default and downgrade. Mr. Boehner insisted that there be a vote in December to raise the debt ceiling; that the House and Senate must pass a balanced constitutional amendment. That is false. In America we can guarantee a vote, but we can't guarantee an outcome.

Here are the facts: We will be downgraded if we don't take action or if action is not taken seriously. So we must have serious policy, we must have a pragmatic process to reform taxes, and also the way to deal with entitlements. Those who rate our credit, such as Moody's, said a short-term extension would lead to downgrade in credit. Under the Boehner proposal we would be downgraded immediately because of his criteria.

The Republicans' refusal to say yes to the $2 trillion spending cut that is proposed in the Reid resolution is mind boggling. We are agreeing to $2 trillion worth of cuts.

As a Democrat, as a New Deal Democrat, as a Fair Deal Democrat, I have now agreed to more cuts than I would ever do under any other circumstances. I have compromised. Other Democrats of my political persuasion have compromised. Where is the compromise on the other side? We need compromise, first of all, to get a vote, and then to get it done. I am scared that if we go into a default, interest rates will skyrocket. But the President is going to have to set priorities. Benefits will be affected.

Today I have a Marine Corps pin on. Why did I wear a Marine Corps pin? First of all, because of their words ``Semper Fi,'' always faithful. How about us? Why can't we be as good as the military we send into war? Those men and women are willing to put their lives on the line to fight and defend for democracy. Why can't we be willing to put our political careers on the line to fight and defend for democracy? I am willing to make the tough choices. I have already made a tough choice to support the significant and Draconian cuts in domestic spending with very little coming out of defense, but more should come. I wanted to get rid of sacred cows such as the ethanol subsidy, such as the oil and gas subsidy, those sacred cows that slurp it up and milk the public trough. But, oh, no. We couldn't go to revenues, we just had to go to cuts.

So guess what. Democrats have compromised. We have gone 80 percent of the way. Why can't they come the other 20 percent and say yes to Reid? Reid gives us a deadline through 2013, which provides the certainty that the credit ratings would like. We make a significant downpayment on reducing the debt, and we have a political process--and I am willing to put more teeth in it--a political process to get rid of tax earmarks. And that is what they are; make no mistake, they are tax earmarks for the pampered and the prosperous. I am ready to reform that and then take a look at entitlement reform.

I think the Reid proposal is the path forward. But I say, as we wrap up, could we put politics aside? Could we put partisan sniping aside? Could we not come together? We on this side of the aisle have made 80 percent of a compromise. We look to the other side to give us the other 20 percent. It will not be giving the Democrats that; it will be ensuring the solvency and security of the United States of America.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, how much time am I allowed?

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I come to the floor today with a great sense of urgency. We are less than 1 week away from reaching our debt limit. If we fail and we falter, the United States of America will be irrevocably fractured. We aren't at an impasse; we are at the edge of a cliff. Unless Congress acts, we are going to go over it.

What will be the consequences of it? If we do not meet our obligations to pay our debts, it will result in a default, and default will result in enormous increases in interest rates. For Americans who are so worried about tax increases, I've got to send a real red alert. When interest rates go sky high because of our failure to act, it will be the biggest tax on America that we could have, and it will be a tax at the kitchen table. It means if anyone has a variable-rate mortgage, it will skyrocket.

If you have a student loan, that interest is going to increase. If you have a car loan, forget it. The payments are going to be enormous. So we need to face what this means: raising the debt limit. We need to prevent the default so our bond rating is not lowered.

I have never been big on talking about bond ratings, but this is a crucial one. We now have a AAA bond rating. So what does that mean? It means when they buy our Treasury bills or other government-secured investments, but particularly our T-bills, it is as good as gold. If we are downgraded, we could just be a tinhorn, tin-cup nation. This is not the United States of America. This is not what people fought and died for.

When people say they represent a party that wants to defend the Constitution, we all have to defend the Constitution. Right now, defending the Constitution and defending America is to lift our debt ceiling and get to the hard work of, No. 1, dealing with our debt but also dealing with job growth.

We have to get to work. Instead, we are busy at work playing the blame game. Squabbling is not a solution. But I believe we Democrats do have a solution, and I think the solution does lie in the Reid proposal. The Reid proposal the majority leader has offered is substantive, it is real, and it is achievable.

I was on TV yesterday, and they said: Oh, you are a liberal Democrat. Well, I don't know if I am a liberal, I don't know if I am a conservative, but I will tell you what I am. I am a diner Democrat. I think about the people. I think about the ordinary people, and I think about their day-to-day needs. When people talk about what kind of solutions they mean, they want everything on the table. What I want on the table are the things that affect the kitchen table. That is why I support the Reid proposal. It is an achievable framework for avoiding default and downgrade of our bond rating now.

What does it do? It has three important elements.

One, timing, to take us through 2012. It is not about the next election. It is showing we are serious and we are substantive.

Second, it has important content where we do cut Federal spending. It's observable, it's quantifiable, and it's verifiable.

No. 3, it gives us a path forward to deal with the important issues of entitlement and revenue reform. Wow.

So why can't they take it? I am puzzled about why they can't take it. Is it 2012? OK. Who knows who is going to be in control of either the White House or the Congress then? But it can't be about us. It is not about me. It is about we--we, the people.

Let's go to the content. There are substantial cuts there in discretionary spending. And there are substantial cuts to defense spending that do not affect readiness or military health care. These are actually cuts that the House voted for in the Ryan budget. So a few weeks ago, they said yes to the cuts. But when we say yes to the cuts, they say no to the proposal. I don't get it. But it's not whether I get it. It is that we have to make sure we get a solution.

What I think is important about the Reid proposal is it is $2.7 trillion in cuts. I understand CBO has scored it and they say it is $2.2 trillion. Well, $2.2 trillion, $2.7 trillion, that is real money. That is real money, and it shows we are serious.

It also provides this important path forward called a Joint Committee. It is not a commission where it is going to be outsiders who are experts from think-tank environments and hoo-ha, hoo-ha. It's Members of Congress, both sides of the aisle, both sides of the Dome. Let's get it together with them, and then let's have this committee where we then move forward on the reform of revenue as well as looking at entitlement reform.

I want to be clear that if, the horror of all horrors comes where we fracture the standing of the United States of America, not only in the financial markets but in the standing of the world, it will have very serious consequences.

The President is going to have to pay the bills based on whatever money is coming in. He would not be able to borrow. America would not be able to borrow. So our T-bill will not have the same value it once did. He is going to have to pay our bills.

What are the consequences on federal benefits? One is paychecks. The first paycheck he is going to meet is the paycheck for our troops. He has to make sure that if they are fighting to defend America while we are squabbling around and screwing around, we are going to pay our troops. My God, did it ever occur to anyone that our troops wouldn't get paid? Yes, it is going to be tight.

So we pay the troops. We are going to certainly pay our veterans' benefits. They might not be the same amount the first month, but we will kind of squeak through. Then, it will be Social Security. Well, maybe the checks will go out, but maybe it will only be at half the amount. But the Social Security offices will be closed. So benefits will have a direct impact.

Where is he going to slow down the trickle of money? To State and local governments. So what does that mean? Community development block grant money, education, and so on. That is going to cause enormous layoffs of public employees and contractors at the State and local level. The asphalt contractor, the person who handles the office machinery, minority contractors, and so on--all that small business they love to romanticize over are going to have a big impact.

Then the Federal Government will definitely have to slow down or not pay at all contractors, whether it is the big defense guys that employ thousands and thousands of people or it is the small- to medium-sized businesses, like the ones in my own State that do information technology?

We are about to destroy the reputation and solvency of the United States of America. We are about to destroy the reputation and solvency of the United States of America not only for one day but for a decade and maybe the rest of the century. This is not being done by an outside power. We are spending $700 billion on defense, and we are destroying ourselves by a self-inflicted wound because of political dysfunction, political rigidity, and political ideology. What the heck is this? I could even use more intense language. What we are about to do, we cannot allow this to happen.

One of my colleagues said to me yesterday, Senator Mikulski, what would it take to get you to the table? I said: Get me a plan and 30 Republican names behind it; I will see if I can support the plan and get 30 others.

I know my time is up, but I don't want the time to be up on America. Let's come together. Let's stop being Democrats, let's stop being Republicans, let's call us what we should be called: Americans.

What do Americans do? When the times are tough, the tough get going. Let's get going. Let's make the tough decisions. Let's put politics aside, put America No. 1, and get us back on track.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of this resolution recognizing 2011 as the 11-year anniversary of the National Family Caregiver Support Program and declaring 2011 The Year of the Family Caregiver. This year, caregivers across the country and the Administration on Aging are celebrating family caregivers and working to improve the support family caregivers receive.

Today's resolution recognizes the 65 million Americans who serve as family caregivers for their family members, friends, and other loved ones living with a disability, chronic illness, or other condition associated with old age. Family caregivers are the backbone of our Nation's long-term care system, accounting for 80 percent of all long- term services provided in the United States. They provide high-quality services that improve the lives of the people they care for and benefit our society.

I created the National Family Caregiver Support Program in 2000 to strengthen the Older Americans Act so it may meet the day-to-day needs of our older Americans and their caregivers. The program is a partnership between States and Area Agencies on Aging. The National Family Caregiver Support Program provides counseling, training, respite care, adult daycare, and other support services to 600,000 caregivers so that families can get the resources they need to care for their loved one. The program helps American families take care of older parents while raising children of their own and pursuing a career. It also helps grandparents who are taking care of grandchildren. The National Family Caregiver Support Program helps families provide care longer and delays the need for costly nursing home care.

Family caregiving continues to place a lot of stress on families in terms of time, energy, and finances, but American families are up to this challenge. I ask my colleagues today to join me in applauding the work of family caregivers and those who support them every day.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the crisis America is facing. We are facing two crises. We are facing a significant debt crisis, and we are facing a political leadership crisis. We need to deal with both. We need to be sure all things are on the table and all people are at the table trying to find sensible, pragmatic solutions to be able to move our country forward and stabilize our economy so we can grow our economy.

Now, I am going to talk first about the debt crisis. Then I am going to talk about what we need to do to act like Americans. I am for a more frugal government. We have been voting on cuts in discretionary spending. I supported the ban on discretionary spending earmarks. You were a reformer in that area, and I joined with you in that area, Mr. President.

I also voted for $41 billion in cuts in the continuing resolution. In April I voted for $78 billion more in cuts. I wanted to avoid a tea party shutdown and work for this more frugal government. But now we have to lift the debt ceiling, and in order to do that we need to have a path forward dealing with both the deficit and debt. In order to do that, we need to, just as we cut the earmarks on discretionary spending, cut the tax break earmarks, those tax break earmarks that have gone to the well connected but who are disconnected from how we can help our economy grow.

I never thought a budget deal would be easy, but I believed we could agree on a few key principles. Well, we have not. The Republicans want to close Social Security Offices. I want to close tax loopholes. They want to get rid of teachers. I want to get rid of sacred cows. That is why I voted last week to end the tax break on ethanol production. Wow. Talk about a tax break earmark. It is ethanol. It has serious consequences to our budget. It also artificially raises the cost of corn. So what does that mean to Barb Mikulski?

Well, right now one of the most important industries on my eastern shore is poultry. Poultry has helped make Maryland great and provided jobs for thousands of Marylanders, people who work hard, get dirt under their fingernails, salute the flag.

Well, they want us to act like we salute the flag and work under the flag. Corn is now $7 a bushel. I have companies that have been around for over 100 years filing for bankruptcy. Well, I cannot allow that to go on. We have to get rid of the artificial subsidies and deal with it and use that money to go into deficit reduction.

So I want part of any agreement that we make to make sure that eliminating the tax break earmark on ethanol is also in the budget. I also want to get rid of oil and gas tax breaks. Gas has reached $4 a gallon in many parts of my State. Yet at the same time, the five biggest oil companies made $36 billion in profits in the first 3 months--3 months they made $36 billion.

Well, companies making billions in profits should again pay their fair share. We Democrats voted to end those subsidies and devote $2 billion a year to deficit reduction. Now, the Republicans want to keep tax break earmarks. I want to get rid of tax break earmarks. But they refuse to end these giveaways.

There are others. Senator Durbin spoke eloquently about the tax breaks that send jobs overseas. Those jobs have left. They went on a slow boat to China, a fast track to Mexico. Other jobs are in dial 1- 800 anywhere but in the USA. We have to have a patriotic Tax Code where we crack down on the tax cheats and invest the money back here at home.

It is not only the tax cheats, we legally give them money. We take the money of people who worked in manufacturing, who paid taxes, and when they paid those taxes, we gave subsidies to send their jobs oversees. Wow. No wonder people are mad at Congress. They ought to be mad at Congress.

But I worry about the consequences also of default. When I go around Maryland, people do not understand what that means. They think when we raise the debt ceiling it is going to raise their interest rates on their credit cards, their student loans, or their mortgages in some way if they have a variable rate. Oh, my gosh. It is just something. We need to make known in plain English what this means.

The fact that the United States of America might not pay its bills on August 3 is frightening. It is frightening from the standpoint of national honor. America should pay its bills. It has always paid its bills. Also, it is important for our economy. The consequences could be Draconian, unprecedented, and even well beyond the Armageddon of the Great Depression. We could, on August 3, not be able to pay our Social Security benefits. We could

not be able to pay our veterans benefits.

This is shocking. We cannot allow this to happen. So we have to come to the table. That is why I said at the opening of my remarks we all have to be at the table, and all things have to be on the table.

Now, I am going to talk about political leadership. I want to talk about all of us at the table. I lived through a very serious crisis when Ronald Reagan was President, and Ronald Reagan, Tip O'Neill, and Howard Baker provided the political leadership. It was tough. It was scary.

In 1982, we were scared that we could not meet our obligations, that our Social Security checks would go out. The trust fund was running on fumes. America faced the fact that we would go into default with our senior citizens. President Reagan provided leadership. I did not agree with everything President Reagan wanted to offer. But he said: We have to put America first. He called up his friend Tip O'Neill. Tip O'Neill brought Democrats to the table. Bob Byrd was our party's leader in the Senate. Those two men stood together as Americans, not as Democrats. We turned to Bob Dole, chairing the Finance Committee, and Howard Baker. They came to the table, not as Republicans but as Americans. That is what we need now. We have to come to the table as Americans.

I love being a Democrat. My family were Democrats. We are going to be Democrats forever. But what I love more is being an American. I got into politics as a protester. In other countries they would have thrown me in prison. Here they put me into politics to stand up for the people. I would not have been able to go to college; I would not have been able to pursue the American dream.

I love America and I want America to have a great future ahead of it. We have to stop acting as if we are the Red Party and the Blue Party. We have to start behaving as if we are the Red, White, and Blue Party.

Now, I have heard about these pledges to Grover Norquist. But I take one pledge. I take a pledge to the flag of the United States of America. One Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice-- justice--for all. That is what we need to do.

I take an oath on the Constitution to protect and defend the people and the law that governs it. Let's get real and let's realize whom our first pledge is to.

So I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: Go back to your Republican history books. Read what Ronald Reagan did in 1982. Read what Republican leadership did in 1986. I will do the same for Democrats. When Tip O'Neill brought us to the table, I had to make tough votes. We drank strong medicine. But you know what. At the end of the day we made our obligations. Seniors got their checks, we got the Social Security trust fund out of that crisis, and we became a stronger economy and a better America. We can do it. But let's realize to whom we take our pledge. Mine will always be not to the Democratic Party but to the United States of America. So let's be at the table and put all things on the table.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I strongly support the Women Working in Non Traditional Jobs Act, introduced by Senators Gillibrand and myself late last week. This legislation would encourage local and State workforce systems to think differently about how they train and prepare women for jobs in which they are not well-represented. Women currently represent half of our Nation's workforce, but two-thirds of these women are concentrated in 21 of 500 occupational jobs. Nontraditional jobs, in which women make up 25 percent or less of employees, pay 20-30 percent more than traditionally female jobs. Because of this discrepancy, it is important to establish a program that will aid women in moving away from occupations they have traditionally held, which are by and large lower paying than occupations where men are concentrated. I have always been a strong advocate for equal opportunity in the workforce. This bill would create a new Federal grant program designed to help women find these high-wage nontraditional jobs.

Currently, there is only one Federal grant program designed to train women for nontraditional jobs: the Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations, WANTO, but this program is under-resourced and overly narrow in scope. WANTO is 17 years old, has been funded at only $1 million for years, and is specifically designed to increase women's participation in the construction industry. The Women WIN Jobs Act would expand the work of WANTO by authorizing up to $100 million for recruiting, training, placing, and retaining women in nontraditional occupations that are high-demand, and high-growth.

Women have difficulty entering nontraditional fields because they lack sufficient information about career opportunities and pathways. Without sufficient training, preparation, or information, women will not be able to fully participate in the Nation's workforce and will continue to be underrepresented in high-earning and in-demand fields. This bill would address that problem by encouraging workforce systems to give women the support and preparation they need to compete for nontraditional jobs. Preparing women for work in nontraditional fields is crucial to success in the workforce and general economic success for our country.

Mr. President, I rise in favor of ending lavish and unneeded ethanol subsidies. This is the second opportunity that my colleagues and I have to end unnecessary subsidies to one of the most profitable and wealthy industries in the world. In May, I voted to end $2 billion a year in tax breaks to the five biggest oil companies that made more than $36 billion in profits in the first 3 months of 2011. And today I will vote to end $6 billion a year subsidies for ethanol blenders.

While the Nation is facing record deficits and families and businesses in Maryland are getting crushed with high gas, corn and food prices, ending $6 billion a year in tax breaks for ethanol producers is a no-brainer. The numbers speak for themselves. This subsidy doesn't help the chicken farmers on the eastern shore of Maryland who are paying corn costs that are three times higher than they were 5 years ago. It isn't making us less dependent on foreign oil. And it certainly isn't reducing the deficit. The only thing this subsidy is doing is padding the pockets of oil companies who blend ethanol. These companies don't need taxpayer help to survive--let alone thrive.

At a time when Congress is considering devastating cuts to FIRE grants for our first responders, home heating oil assistance for seniors, and nutritious foods for pregnant women and newborns, it makes no sense to preserve a $6 billion a year tax break for an industry that doesn't need it. If we are serious about the deficit, we have to make smart decisions, Ending these subsidies is a long overdue answer to getting this country back on track to fiscal sanity, and not in a way that hurts middle class families or traditional industries in Maryland.

Ethanol blenders have hit the trifecta of government support. First, the law requires that ethanol be used in gasoline. Second, blenders get a 45-cent-per-gallon tax credit. And third, it is protected by a tariff which discourages the import of cheaper, more efficient, and more environmentally sound types of ethanol. The Feinstein amendment does not change the requirement that ethanol be used in gasoline. It simply ends the unneeded and lavish subsidy to oil companies that blend the ethanol.

It is time to stop filling up oil industry profits while draining taxpayer's wallets. Ending these subsidies will right a wrong in the tax code and ensure that middle class families aren't on the hook for more giveaways. Let's pass this bill, end these subsidies, and put our efforts into additional ways to reduce the deficit.

Madam President, yesterday I voted for the Tester amendment on debit card interchange fees. This amendment would give the Federal Reserve more time to study the impact of proposed debit card fee

regulations on consumers and the community banks and credit unions that serve them.

I vigorously support the intent of the original Durbin amendment, and I thank Senator Durbin for working to bring an end to the gouging and the profiteering at the largest banks.

My No. 1 priority is consumers. I have always made sure I was on the side of consumers and Main Street and against unfair and abusive practices on Wall Street. I have a deep suspicion of how big banks treat the little people and what they do with the little people's money.

I voted for the original Durbin amendment during the debate over the Wall Street reform bill because something had to be done to rein in these hidden fees that kept rising and rising--and getting passed on to consumers. The amendment included an exemption for banks with less than $10 billion in assets to ensure that only the largest banks would be affected.

Since then, the community banks and credit unions in my State tell me that they are afraid that the current $10 billion exemption for debit card issuers will not protect them and that they will be forced to stop services, charge consumers new fees, or risk the stability of their institution if they are not adequately protected from the debit card fee limit. I take these concerns very seriously.

In this fragile economy, we have to be very careful about the stability of our community banks and our credit unions. Often, they are the only ones lending to our neighbors and small businesses. And making sure that Americans in the middle class are not denied access to these institutions is consumer protection, too.

After careful consideration, I am voting for Senator Tester's amendment. I want to ensure that consumers are not hurt by unintended consequences of well-intentioned regulations. That is why I call for more study. It is the prudent thing to do. But I recognize that delay can be a tool to derail, and my intent is not to derail. We must be prudent, but we also must be prompt. Let me be clear, I will not let this drag on indefinitely. If, at the end of 12 months, this issue is not resolved--I will urge the Fed to act quickly and support legislation to force action.

I have a long history on this issue. My family has fought for generations to protect consumers and expand access to credit.

Before the stock market crash in 1929, when banks in downtown Baltimore wouldn't lend to people who they regarded as on the wrong side of the tracks, my grandfather, along with small businesses in the area, got together to start a savings and loan to serve the community. They lent to small businesses that didn't have access to credit and they lent to women when no one else would.

When the tough times came in the Great Depression this savings and loan was there so people didn't lose their homes. They refused to foreclose on homes and businesses. If you paid a nickel a week on your mortgage, you were considered current.

Later, in the heart of the African-American community in Baltimore, when there was no access to credit, community members would be targeted by Happy Harry. And why was Harry happy? Because he charged 18 to 20 percent interest for a loan and knew his customers had nowhere else to turn.

So I worked with the Parish Council at St. Gregory's Church to establish a credit union so that there would be access and to end the scamming, the scheming, and the gouging.

As a Senator, I continued these fights. When I heard that innocent people in Maryland and across the country were being gouged and ripped off, I vowed to stop it. I helped create a flipping task force in Baltimore that was to be a model for the Nation.

In 2003, after hearing that the Fairbanks Capital Corporation was threatening a number of Marylanders with foreclosure, I called for a Federal investigation of Fairbanks. The company paid $40 million into a restitution fund so victims could get their money back and innocent homeowners could get their good name back.

And in 2009, I put funding in the Federal checkbook to help the FBI investigate mortgage fraud so that they can have the resources to help stop the scamming, the scheming, and the gouging.

I said during the debate over the Wall Street reform bill that we had gotten into a financial situation where we bailed out the big banks. We bailed out the whales, we bailed out the sharks, and we had left the people in the community, the little minnows, to swim upstream and be on their own.

When I traveled around my State that summer, in diners and dry cleaners, I heard anger and frustration in people's voices. They watched Wall Street mortgage brokers profit off irresponsible lending while their husbands work an extra shift to make sure they could make the monthly mortgage payment. And they watched big firms take very risky gambles with their money without any regulation.

We need to put government back on the side of the middle class. The banks got their bailout; how about we make sure we protect the middle class against fraud, duplicity, and gouging?

But we don't just need effective regulations to keep Wall Street in line. We need to make sure our community banks and credit unions--the institutions where Marylanders have savings accounts and where the teller knows their name and their family--are not swallowed up by the sharks and the whales on Wall Street.

I want to see that consumers are treated fairly in the debit card marketplace. I want to be sure that the good guy community banks and credit unions--and the customers who rely on them--are not harmed by the unintended consequences of these regulations.

That is why I voted for the Tester amendment: to give the Federal Reserve the additional time it needs to finalize its regulations so that consumers, community banks, and credit unions are protected.

Mr. President, May 25, 2011, marked the 50th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's speech that set the original dream of American exploration with a goal of sending a human to the Moon and returning him safely by the end of the decade.

President Kennedy's speech was more than a call for a Moon shot. It was 17 days after Alan Shepard became the second human in space, and the Nation was still recovering from a recession and recovering from the Cuban missile crisis. That year, President Kennedy took the unusual step of coming to Congress in May to address urgent, ``extraordinary'' national needs. During his speech, he said, ``In a very real sense, it will not be one man going to the Moon . . . it will be an entire Nation. For all of us must work to put him there.'' He sounded the starting gun of the space race. In that race, the United States and its young President were determined to cross the finish line first.

America is no longer in a space race. We are in a race for our economic future. We are not racing other countries. We are racing ourselves. To win this economic race, we must do as President Obama has urged us. We must work together to out-innovate, out-educate, and out- build our competitors. That is why I fight so hard to invest in America's exploration and discovery which creates jobs for today and jobs for tomorrow.

As we were 50 years ago, our space program is embarking on a new journey. This year, after 30 years of great service NASA will retire the Space Shuttle with honor and dignity. We will bid goodbye to this workhorse that launched and fixed Hubble and built the International Space Station.

Last year, Congress gave NASA a new path forward. My colleagues and I fought to pass a new authorization bill. It was not easy. There was confusion and chaos about the path forward, and the austere budget environment required tough choices. The authorization law established a balanced space program. It increased investments in Science and Aeronautics so we can explore the universe, protect the planet, and make air travel safer and more reliable. The bill provided for new Space Technology research and development to make exploring space safer and more efficient. Finally, it gave us a sustainable human space flight program that extends the International Space Station lab to 2020, opens low Earth orbit to commercial providers, for cargo first, then crew, and broadens human reach beyond low Earth orbit.

NASA will begin building our next generation vehicles to go beyond low Earth orbit, the heavy lift rocket and the Orion capsule. The private sector will build commercial cargo and crew vehicles, with NASA providing the venture capital to get cargo and astronauts to the International Space Station while building a whole new industry.

The shuttle is retiring, but our missions in space will sail on. It doesn't matter how we get there. We can't be defined by our Space Transportation System. Our future in space will be built on innovation and discovery from commercial rockets taking cargo and someday astronauts to the International Space Station; to the James Webb Space Telescope discovering new galaxies and new frontiers in science; to new technologies to grab and fix damaged satellites in space with robots.

New technologies don't just happen. They come from American ingenuity that is built on discovery and innovation. They have made America great and they have made us a nation worth imitating.

As we look around the world, we see people who yearn to imitate the democracy we have, who brought down dictators and autocrats with American innovations like Twitter. They believe representative, parliamentary bodies can give them an orderly way to move government forward and will give them better lives, helping them compete in the world economy.

Already, emerging nations, like China, are imitating our investments in discovery and innovation. China is embarking on an ambitious space program that is reaching for the stars with satellites and astronauts. China is increasing its science research budget 20 percent each year, seeking to replicate our National Science Foundation.

I don't worry about being in a race with China or other nations. China can't beat us. We can only beat ourselves by losing our drive to reach for great goals and by failing to invest in the research and development that will help us achieve them. I will keep fighting to for the innovation and discovery that makes America worth imitating.

I believe in the space program. I believe in space technology, in green science that helps us understand and protect the planet, and in heliophysics that studies the Sun so we know when solar storms could knock out the power grid. I believe in the men and women of the space program like the astronauts who risk their lives to extend our human reach in space, the astrophysicists who teach us about dark matter and the origins of the universe, and the machinists who craft the precision robots that explore the universe for us. The men and women of the space program are the best of the American economy, creating jobs for today and jobs for tomorrow.

President Kennedy knew we needed all of the Nation's talents to go safely to the Moon. Fifty years later, we live in different, and more frugal, times. We must not let our urgent, immediate needs keep us from investing in programs that see results well into the future. While looking toward immediate national needs, President Kennedy also urged investments for the long haul. He wanted the United States to take risks on science that changed the world, putting people on the Moon, and on a civilian weather satellite in space.

While America waits on our new crop of innovations to mature, we will keep reaping the harvest of the discoveries and investments made long ago that have become the Internet, medical imaging like MRIs, and countless other products that help American companies invent new products and create new jobs.

In these frugal times, we should all work together to keep alive President Kennedy's spirit of exploration and discovery and win the future.