Floor Statements

I thank Senator Boxer very much for her steadfast stance for American women.

Today, the Democratic women have come to the floor to talk about the terrible impact the Republican budget coming from the House and getting started in the Senate has on women.

After I speak, I will be followed by Senators Stabenow and Shaheen and then Senator Blumenthal. Other colleagues want to join us. Senator McCaskill is in Missouri, as she should be, with her constituents. Senators Feinstein and Klobuchar are chairing hearings.

But let me get right to my position. You know, the Republicans--we are not going to call this the Ryan budget because whether it is the Ryan budget, the Toomey budget, whatever, it is the wrong budget for America, and it continues the radical Republican attack on women they began in H.R. 1. They started to attack us by taking away our health care, our family planning. Now they are back at it again.

The Republican budget takes away our health care, and there are no ifs,

ands, or buts about it. We are not going to put up with it. No matter what they try to take away from us, we are not going to let it happen.

What do I mean by that? Well, let's start with Medicare. Medicare is the single most important health care program in America for seniors. Women are the majority users of Medicare because we live longer.

When the Republicans want to talk about taking away or changing Medicare as we know it, what is it that they mean? They are going to take away a guaranteed benefit and convert it into guaranteed profits for insurance companies. They talk about a voucher program. It is a payment for care that does not go to a senior but goes to an insurance company. People believe Medicare should be that they go to the doctors they need, get the prescriptions their doctors say they need, and they have follow-up and consistent care. No matter what, when the Republicans say this is going to give grandma more choice, more choice to do what? Be at the mercy of insurance company executives who ever- shrink benefits package and ever-expand premiums, all of which-- government subsidizes their profits instead of providing a safety net so that if you are old and sick in America, you get the care you need, choose the doctor you want, and get the prescription drugs necessary. Under the Republican budget, Federal dollars turned over to the insurance companies will force people to pay more. In my own home State, it will mean $6,000 more in health care.

But they don't stop just at Medicare; they go on to Medicaid. Now, ``Medicaid'' sounds like a bad word or they have made it sound like a bad word, that it is a budget-buster. But, make no mistake, Medicaid primarily pays for nursing home bills, nursing home bills for middle- class Americans who need it to turn to nursing home care for a loved one who may have Alzheimer's or Parkinson's or Lou Gehrig's disease. You don't go into a nursing home because it is a lifestyle choice; it is usually a lifesaving mandate. In order to do that, there is no government program to help you, so you have to spend down your life savings to qualify for Medicaid, and then Medicaid will help you pay for those bills. But under the Republican budget, they are going to pull the rug out from anyone who has a loved one in a nursing home.

Go out and talk to young families who are part of the sandwich generation, those who are caring for their aging parents and know they have to make sure they can help pay these long-term care costs while they are worrying about how to send their kids to college. Once more, they are trying to undermine the safety-net protections for middle- class Americans.

One thing the Republican plan does--it is a guaranteed bailout for insurance companies. Then they even go a step further. And I know my colleagues will talk about what the defunding of health care will do. I want to talk about the defunding of NIH, the cuts to NIH.

The National Institutes of Health will also be cut under the Republican assault on women. What are they talking about by shrinking NIH? When you shrink the National Institutes of Health, that means there will be setbacks and delays to find that cure for Alzheimer's, that cure for Lou Gehrig's disease, that cure for Parkinson's disease. Right now, there are 5.5 million people living with Alzheimer's. It is predicted that by the year 2050, 50 million Americans will have Alzheimer's. And 1.5 million have Parkinson's disease.

These are not numbers and statistics; these are families who need help. They certainly need Medicare. They might need long-term care. But they also need to know their government is on their side. We can have races for cures, and we can have walks for the memory programs with the Alzheimer's Association. We can't find cures for diseases on private philanthropy, and the drug companies aren't investing the way they should in finding these new cures. We can't undermine this, whether you are cutting Medicare, which women need; Medicaid, which is the safety net for nursing home care; and even the research to find the cure for these diseases.

Now, whom does this affect? It affects people at all ages. It affects constituents of mine who have worked very hard building automobiles and working in steel mills, working in offices, working hard to be good patriotic people. It goes to even a former member of our Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor, whose husband was gripped by Alzheimer's, and that is one of the reasons she stepped down when she did, because she was going to take care of him. Alzheimer's is an equal-opportunity disease. It hits all incomes and all ZIP Codes. But they are going to take a hit because of the Republican budget.

We are just going to shine a light on this. This is not about a more frugal government. This is not about limited government. This is about government abandoning its responsibility to the American people. And while we are busy promoting democracy over there, let's make sure we continue to provide health care right back here in America.

I now yield the floor for a real champion to women and seniors, my colleague, Senator Stabenow.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal.) The Senator from Michigan.

Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to salute the women who have served in the U.S. Armed Forces and honor the sacrifices they have made for our country.

Long before they were welcomed as members of the military, women played an important role in supporting our troops. Since the American Revolution, women have tended to the wounded and provided care to our soldiers. In the early 20th century, women answered the ultimate call to duty and began to serve proudly in our Armed Forces.

These early women veterans were trailblazers, creating new opportunities for the women that follow in their footsteps. They gave all that they could to protect and defend our country, often without the same recognition given to their male counterparts. Today, women serve at all levels of the armed services as combat pilots, medical care professionals, engineers, and police officers.

There are over 1.8 million women veterans in the United States and the role of women in the armed services continues to grow. Over 212,000 women have served actively in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than 120 women soldiers have sacrificed their lives and many more have been wounded. These women have played an integral role in our military's success, working closely with ground combat troops.

Women have been and continue to be a vital part of the military. Their bravery and patriotism is without question. Their contributions demand recognition. We must pay tribute to those women veterans who answered the call to defend America.

On behalf of myself, and speaking for the thousands of women who have benefited from their example, I would like to recognize and thank the women who have served our country, proudly and with honor.

I rise today to submit a resolution urging the United States Postal Service to issue a semipostal stamp to help raise money for Alzheimer's research. A semipostal stamp will fund new research while also raising public awareness about this devastating disease.

Finding new ways to treat Alzheimer's should be a national priority. The disease not only harms patients and their families, it strains our health care system as well. Every 70 seconds, someone in America develops Alzheimer's. An estimated 5.4 million Americans have Alzheimer's disease, including one in eight people over 65. The direct and indirect costs of Alzheimer's and other dementias to Medicare, Medicaid and businesses amount to more than $183 billion each year. By 2050, this disease is likely to affect more than 11 to 16 million people 65 and older--unless we can find a medical breakthrough.

As Alzheimer's Disease is so prevalent, almost every American knows someone with this condition. My father was diagnosed with Alzheimer's. This was after many physicians said it was just ``old age'' stress or depression. Like all family members with a loved one with Alzheimer's, I felt powerless over my father's situation as he got worse.

There are 14.9 million unpaid caregivers taking care of loved ones with Alzheimer's. They are depending on us to help find the cure for this terrible disease. No treatment is available to slow or stop the deterioration of brain cells in Alzheimer's disease. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved five drugs that temporarily slow the worsening of symptoms for about six to 12 months. They are effective for only about half of the individuals who take them.

However, researchers around the world are studying numerous treatment strategies that may have the potential to change the course of the disease. Approximately 75 to 100 experimental therapies aimed at slowing or stopping the progression of Alzheimer's are in clinical testing in human volunteers. We need to keep the fight for a cure strong and funded.

A semipostal stamp is one way each of us can help in the fight against Alzheimer's. Proceeds from the stamp's sales would help fund Alzheimer's research at the National Institutes of Health. By paying more than the normal postage rate for this stamp, the public can contribute directly to the search for a new treatment or even a cure. I also want to thank Senator Cardin for his cosponsorship of the Alzheimer's research semipostal stamp and Representative Markey for working on this important legislation in the House. I ask my colleagues today to join me in the fight against Alzheimer's and support this resolution.

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

Mr. President, the Democratic women of the Senate are on the floor today to talk about the three votes that will occur tomorrow: one, the passing of the continuing resolution, which I reluctantly support because of the many cuts in it, but also the two riders, one defunding the health care bill and the other defunding Planned Parenthood.

My gosh, how outrageous that we have to vote on these two riders. These two riders absolutely do not affect our deficit and our debt. In fact, the health care reform that we passed, by the CBO's own estimates and by independent evaluators, says we will actually reduce health care costs because of what we have done.

What are the consequences of what they are talking about? The rightwing is trying to change the conversation away from, how do we create jobs in this country, how do we authentically reduce deficit and debt, into socially provocative riders that literally wage war against women. The extreme rightwing campaigned against the health care. They said they were going to repeal and replace. All they want to do is repeal. They have no idea for replacing. Let's talk about what they want to repeal. Let's talk about the war they are waging against women.

If you repeal or defund health care, it will have a Draconian impact on American women, make no mistake about it. In the health care bill, we ended gender discrimination in health insurance. No longer could insurance companies charge women 30 to 40 percent more than men of equal age and health status for the same coverage. The other thing we ended was denying women health care on the basis of a preexisting condition. We were horrified to learn that in 8 States, women were denied health insurance access simply because they were victims of domestic violence. They were beaten up in their homes, they were beaten up by insurance companies, and now they want to beat them up on the Senate floor and beat them up in the Senate budget.

We are going to stand up. We are not going to tolerate women being pushed around and made targets of this war. No longer can women be denied coverage because they had a C-section or because they had a premature baby. We fought for preventive services. We fought for mammograms and for Pap smears. We fought not only for ourselves, we fought for men too, which included their screening.

If you defund health care, make no mistake--and every woman in America should know this--they are going to take the funding for mammograms away from you. They are going to take away the preventive health amendment that allowed you access to preventive screening at no additional copays or deductibles. Do we really want that? Oh, sure, you are going to be able to have your mammogram, but you are going to dig deep in your pocket.

We also wanted to end gender discrimination. We wanted to end the punitive practices of insurance companies toward women on the basis of preexisting conditions. We also wanted to have preventive care. One of the greatest preventive-care-giving agencies is Planned Parenthood. It is the single most important health care provider, particularly to young women, in America. If we lose Planned Parenthood, 8,000 Maryland women will lose Pap smears and 7,500 women will lose access to breast care exams. Many of them will lose access to health care generally.

Just because the Republicans live in the Dark Ages doesn't mean American women want to go back. That is why we, the Senate Democratic women, will be voting against these two riders. Women must be clear: Defeating this amendment is a way to end the war against women. There will be many fights ahead of us. We are under attack. We women are under attack, at all ages. The Paul Ryan budget particularly attacks senior women. We are going to fight this. We are suited up. We squared our shoulders. We put our lipstick on. This is not about gender, this is about an American agenda, and we will fight, and we will make our fight a victory.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Paycheck Fairness Act, an important piece of legislation that is even more poignant today, Equal Pay Day, which is the day in 2011 where women earn as much as men did in 2010. It is also unfortunately marked by families doing more with less, and making tough decisions to make ends meet. I thank the 24 of my colleagues that have joined me as original cosponsors of this important legislation today.

As a U.S. Senator, I am fighting for jobs today and jobs tomorrow. I am on the side of a fair economy and I am on the side of good-guy businesses. We need an economy that works for everyone, and works for the American family. But that means equal pay for equal work, and that individuals are judged solely by their individual skills, competence, unique talents and nothing else. The Paycheck Fairness Act gives us the much needed tools to make this happen.

Women make this country run--we are business leaders, entrepreneurs, politicians, mothers and more. We also bring home a growing share of the family pocketbook, as evidenced by a recent White House report, ``Women In America''. But we earn just 77 cents for every dollar our male counterpart makes, and women of color get even less. Inexplicably, these disparities exist across all levels of education and occupation. In my home State of Maryland, the average woman has to receive a bachelor's degree before she earns as much as the average male high school graduate. This is unacceptable.

The Paycheck Fairness Act picks up where we left off with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act last Congress. Enactment of this legislation will mean real progress in the fight to eliminate the gender wage gap and help families. It has the teeth that are needed to keep discrimination from happening in the first place, and makes the consequences tougher. The Act ensures that employers who try to justify paying a man more than a woman for the same job must show the disparity is not sex-based; but job related and necessary. It prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who discuss or disclose salary information with their coworkers. The bill would also make it easier for women to file class-action lawsuits against employers they accuse of sex-based pay discrimination. And it strengthens the available remedies to include punitive and compensatory damages, thus bringing equal pay law into line with all other civil rights law. The bottom line is that this bill ensures that women are treated fairly in the workplace, something that is a matter of basic equality and civil rights.

So this Equal Pay Day, let's recommit to closing the wage gap. It is my hope that one day, there is no need for an Equal Pay Day--that every year, women earn the same as men. Until then, we link up, press on, and push for passage of this important legislation, so that for all victims of pay discrimination, there is a new day ahead.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Paycheck Fairness Act, an important piece of legislation that is even more poignant today, Equal Pay Day, which is the day in 2011 where women earn as much as men did in 2010. It is also unfortunately marked by families doing more with less, and making tough decisions to make ends meet. I thank the 24 of my colleagues that have joined me as original cosponsors of this important legislation today.

As a U.S. Senator, I am fighting for jobs today and jobs tomorrow. I am on the side of a fair economy and I am on the side of good-guy businesses. We need an economy that works for everyone, and works for the American family. But that means equal pay for equal work, and that individuals are judged solely by their individual skills, competence, unique talents and nothing else. The Paycheck Fairness Act gives us the much needed tools to make this happen.

Women make this country run--we are business leaders, entrepreneurs, politicians, mothers and more. We also bring home a growing share of the family pocketbook, as evidenced by a recent White House report, ``Women In America''. But we earn just 77 cents for every dollar our male counterpart makes, and women of color get even less. Inexplicably, these disparities exist across all levels of education and occupation. In my home State of Maryland, the average woman has to receive a bachelor's degree before she earns as much as the average male high school graduate. This is unacceptable.

The Paycheck Fairness Act picks up where we left off with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act last Congress. Enactment of this legislation will mean real progress in the fight to eliminate the gender wage gap and help families. It has the teeth that are needed to keep discrimination from happening in the first place, and makes the consequences tougher. The Act ensures that employers who try to justify paying a man more than a woman for the same job must show the disparity is not sex-based; but job related and necessary. It prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who discuss or disclose salary information with their coworkers. The bill would also make it easier for women to file class-action lawsuits against employers they accuse of sex-based pay discrimination. And it strengthens the available remedies to include punitive and compensatory damages, thus bringing equal pay law into line with all other civil rights law. The bottom line is that this bill ensures that women are treated fairly in the workplace, something that is a matter of basic equality and civil rights.

So this Equal Pay Day, let's recommit to closing the wage gap. It is my hope that one day, there is no need for an Equal Pay Day--that every year, women earn the same as men. Until then, we link up, press on, and push for passage of this important legislation, so that for all victims of pay discrimination, there is a new day ahead.

Madam President, I rise to the floor to speak in morning business and to comment on the terrible situation we find ourselves in. We are in a terrible situation. The Republican leader is exactly right, the clock is ticking on a shutdown.

But I have a couple principles as we head into the midnight witching hour on Friday. First of all, my first principle is no shutdown. Let's have a sitdown. Let's not shut down government and cut off the funding for private sector contractors that do business with the government. Let's have a congressional sitdown and arrive at an orderly, rational agreement that does create a more frugal government but does not torpedo our economy.

But my second principle is, if we shut down the government and Federal employees and contractors do not get paid, Congress should not get paid. Not only should Congress not get paid, no back pay, no way. I spoke about the congressional no-pay position yesterday.

Today, I wish to talk about the consequences of the shutdown. I am against a government shutdown. Shutting down the government breaks faith with Federal employees, jeopardizes our economic recovery, threatens the viability of small- and medium-sized businesses that do business with the Federal Government and even threatens the safety of our families and our economy.

That is why I am for a congressional sitdown, not a shutdown of the Federal Government. Democrats and Republicans should negotiate over spending cuts. But what is not open for negotiation is whether the Federal Government is worth keeping open. Parties must come together.

There is a belief that a shutdown will occur only in Washington. Oh, the lights will go out in the Washington Monument, maybe a museum will be closed here or there, maybe even a national park will be closed here or there. Both on the Senate floor, the House floor, and even in the media, it is followed by kind of a snicker or even a snarl. How foolish, how they do not understand the functioning of the Government of the United States of America.

I am afraid the lights will go out. I am afraid the government agencies will be shuttered. I am concerned that people who work on behalf of the Federal Government as those contractors, small- and medium-sized contractors, disabled veteran contractors will not get paid.

I am for cuts. I voted for the Democratic package with over $51 billion in cuts. In my own appropriations bill, I reduced agency overhead by 10 percent. I cut out lavish conferences and so on by 25 percent. I could eliminate that year by year. But cuts alone are not a strategy to reduce the deficit.

What I do not want is to make sure our government will not be funded. There are other ways of doing it, and I will talk about that more tomorrow, about how we can actually pay for this, but today I wish to talk about the consequences of what we are doing. There is nobody on the Senate floor talking about it. I appreciate the minority leader, but on my side, if nobody is going to talk about it, I am going to talk about it.

A possible government shutdown creates uncertainty in consumer confidence and further damages the economy. Mark Zandi, the chief economist of Moody's, says it will damage the confidence in the economy and could result in the loss of 700,000 jobs. Well, let me tell you-- and everybody says: Oh, well, that is government. I am going to talk about: Oh, well, that is government in a minute.

But let's take the private sector. Let's take that snickering and snarling over national parks. Do you know the national parks--we have 365 of them, 49 States, 300 million visitors. Do you know those national parks generate 270,000 private sector jobs in campgrounds, restaurants, gas stations, vendors to the national parks.

Oh, yes, you can laugh about closing down Yellowstone, and maybe that is not the explosive thing--270,000 jobs, mostly in the West. I did not hear that the West had such a low unemployment rate that they do not give a darn. Local communities near national parks will lose $14 million a day. That is the national park argument.

Let me go to the contractors. I represent the State of Maryland, where we have a lot of contractors. Take the Goddard Space Agency, 3,000 civil servants who do everything from help run the Hubble telescope and green science, to figuring out how we can fix the satellites through robots in the sky. But there are 6,000 contractors-- 6,000 contractors. Some of them are small business, 8(a) contractors working their way up.

Many of them--some of them are women. Many of them are veterans who started small- to medium-sized businesses. These people, if there is a government shutdown, will not get paid. Hello, colleagues. This is not only going to happen in my State, this is going to happen in your State.

There was a major article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday about what the shutdown means to the private sector. Well, let's wake up and let's move more quickly to this sitdown.

I wish to talk about essential versus nonessential. In my State, I represent over 100,000 Federal employees. Three of them are Nobel Prize winners I will talk about in a minute--Nobel Prize winners who are civil servants. Those are not even the gangs at Hopkins and the University of Maryland. Those are three Nobel Prize winners who are actual civil servants.

Under this shutdown we are headed for, they are going to be told they are nonessential. We have a Nobel Prize winner at NIST who works on the development of new work on laser light. Secretary Chu was his partner.

We have a Nobel Prize winner at NIH who won the Nobel Prize for proteins and cellular communication that could lead to a cure for cancer and a Nobel Prize winner at Goddard in physics. I am not going to call their names; I do not want to feel awkward. But what am I going to do midnight Friday? Am I going to call these three Nobel Prize winners and say: Hey, guys, you are nonessential. We know you could be in the private sector making millions of dollars, but you are staying here to do research to save lives, save the planet, and lead to saving our economy. But, hey, I guess you are nonessential.

In other countries, they carry you around on their shoulders and so on. But here, no, we are told they are nonessential. It is not only Nobel Prize winners, it is all the other people who are working. We are going to turn out the lights at the National Institutes of Health. We are going to say to a researcher: I know you are working on that cure for cancer. I know you are working on that cure for Alzheimer's or autism or arthritis--sticking just with the ``A'' words. But you know what, Washington, the Congress says, you are not essential.

What about Social Security? I have over 10,000 people who work at the Social Security Administration. You say: Well, my God, that is a lot. That is 24/7 to make sure it all functions properly and efficiently. We have the lowest overhead of any ``insurance company'' in America. But these lights are going to be shuttered at Social Security, not only in Senator Barb's and Senator Ben Cardin's State, but it is also going to be shuttered, Madam President, in your State. When people want to come to apply for benefits they are eligible for, when people who are disabled want to apply for those benefits, they are going to come to a shuttered Social Security office. They are going to be told they are not essential.

Well, then, let's wait until Monday morning. Are they not going to come to work fired up, ready to work for America, ready to help America be great again? They are America's essential employees doing the work that goes on at NIH, Social Security, the National Institutes of Standards. They come up with new ideas.

Then look at commerce. I represent the great Port of Baltimore. Ships are going to come into the port. Who is going to inspect their cargo? Traffic coming into airports, who is going to inspect their cargo?

But, oh, no, we are going to tell them they are nonessential. Well, I am telling you, this is not going to be good. But you know what is not good, not only the consequences but the way we are functioning.

Madam President--hello? Madam President. I do not know if my speech is not that attention-getting, but can I have your attention?

Well, then, my time is up. Well, maybe the Senate is not paying attention, but the American people are paying attention. I am telling you, this is a situation of enormous negative consequence. I think we are going to rue the day at the way we are functioning. We need to come to the table, and we need to sit around and act like rational human beings.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, my colleague has talked about the disease in Washington, but I want to talk about another disease that seems to be running rampant in the House Republican caucus, and that is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy. The reason I say that is they say one thing and they mean another. They say one thing and they deceive the American public.

Ordinarily, I would not comment on the behavior or the tribal mores of the House Republican caucus, but they have had a field day on TV ridiculing the Senate, ridiculing the Democratic Senate, essentially doing a lot of name calling. I am not doing name calling. I am going to do fact describing.

The reason I call it hypocrisy is this: What they say they want to do, which is reduce government spending, they do not. They only do it on particular groups of people.

The other is something called the consequences of the shutdown. Let me say this: They want to cut spending, but they are unwilling to cut their own pay. Sure, I am for a government that is more frugal. I am for cuts. But I am not for their cuts. What they propose is reckless and radical, and when they do not get their own way, they say: Cut it or shut it.

However, I take this position: If there is a government shutdown, I do not think Members of Congress should be paid. If there is a government shutdown and we tell dedicated Federal employees that they are not going to get paid, that they are nonessential, the fact that we could not stop a shutdown shows we are not essential. I believe if there is a shutdown, Members of Congress should not get paid. I not only want to express that as a sentiment, I did that backing Senator Barbara Boxer's bill which passed the Senate that said if there is a shutdown, Members of Congress do not get paid.

What did the House Republicans do? They passed a bill, I will not go through the details, but on this relevant section they said Members of Congress and the President do not get paid. But guess what. They allow for retroactive payment. The Senate bill does not do that. So they would be the only ones in a shutdown who can come back and pick up that little paycheck they have stuck in a corner. Talk about hypocrisy. That is called bait and switch. It ought to be under some kind of consumer protection law.

Even the title of their bill is wrong. Their bill is called the Government Shutdown Prevention Act. Their bill doesn't stop a shutdown. It doesn't even help with the sitdown. What is a sitdown? We would come to the table as grownup Americans, and we would try to arrive at how to pass a continuing resolution to fund the government that recognizes not only debt but that there are certain aspects of the government programs we need to be able to fund.

My constituents were outraged when Wall Street executives got hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses. They should be outraged when, as Members of Congress, we are going to get paid when they do not.

Here is what I don't get. My home State is the home of the National Institutes of Health. Right now I have thousands of people working as a team to find the cure for Alzheimer's, for AIDS, for autism, for cancer. We race for the cure, and we should, but we are going to tell those researchers they are nonessential.

Right now there are thousands of Federal employees processing the claims of Social Security, making sure someone who is disabled qualifies for their benefit. They are going to be told they are nonessential.

Let me tell you, on any given day, if somebody, in whatever town they live, goes to their Social Security office and finds it shuttered and they cannot apply for a benefit for which they believe they are eligible, I think they would rather shut us down than that Social Security office be shut down.

Ask anybody in the United States of America who they think is more essential, Members of Congress or the researchers working on a cure for cancer or those people working to defend our borders. I could give example after example; you know where they are.

It is very clear people know they depend, for the functioning of the Federal Government, on a civil service that is honest, that has integrity, counseling us to make sure we keep government doors open while we negotiate the numbers. Numbers do matter. I am ready to come to the table. I believe all Democrats are ready to come to the table. But we will not come to the table to engage in meaningless discussions and pursuing a way that is reckless.

I will discuss about the recklessness more, but I want everybody to understand Democrats in the Senate passed a bill that said if there is a shutdown, we don't get paid, no way, no day, and no backpay. So no way, no backpay. The House, in the meantime, did this sham scam that says: Yes, we will pretend we are not getting paid, but we are going to pick up a backpayment.

I don't get these guys. They want to take away Medicare and turn it into a voucher program, but they are sure happy picking up government health care. They love getting federally subsidized health care. They want to take away other people's pensions, but they sure like getting their Federal employee pensions. I am going to put an end to the hypocrisy, and I am going to put an end to the CR dangling.

I think we need to come to the table and pass a responsible budget that recognizes we are in a frugal era and we need to make sure the American people know we are on their side. At the same time, the American people need to know that many of us are willing to say if a shutdown comes and Federal employees get no pay and contractors get no pay, we get no pay and no backpay.

I will have more to say about this as this week unfolds, but before I sit down, please, lets sit down rather than shut down.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be permitted to speak for 5 minutes each on the subject of Geraldine Ferraro: Senators Boxer, Hutchison, Stabenow, Shaheen, Snowe.

We come to the floor with a heavy heart and great sadness. Geraldine Ferraro, a former Member of the House of Representatives, a Congresswoman from New York who was the first woman to be nominated by a major party for Vice President, has lost her gallant and persistent fight against cancer and has passed away.

I thank the leadership for offering the resolution noting the many contributions she made to America and to express condolences to her family.

For we women, before 1960, Gerry was a force of nature, a powerhouse. She changed American politics. She changed the way women thought of themselves and what we believed we could accomplish.

On July 11, 1984, when Walter Mondale called Gerry Ferraro and asked her to be his Vice Presidential running mate, an amazing thing happened. They took down the ``men only'' sign on the White House. For Gerry and all American women, there was no turning back, only going forward.

America knows Gerry as a political phenomenon. I knew her as a dear friend and colleague. We served in the House together in the late 1970s. She left in 1984 to run for Vice President, and I left in 1986 to run for the Senate. We were among the early-bird women in the House of Representatives. And as early birds, we were not afraid to ruffle some feathers. We had some good times and passed some good legislation. It must be historically noted that when Gerry came to the House in 1979, only 16 women were there. In 1984, when she left, we had moved to 23. But in 2011, on the day of her death, 74 women now serve in the House, 50 Democrats, 24 Republicans, and 26 of those women are women of color.

In the Congress, Gerry was a fighter. She was a fighter for New York. She fought for transit, for tunnels. She loved earmarks, earmarks that would help move her community forward. She also fought for the little guy and gal. She was known for her attention to constituent services-- the senior getting a Social Security check, the vet who needed his disability benefits, the kid from a blue-collar neighborhood like herself who wanted to go to college. And she fought for women. She fought for our status and she gave us a new stature.

When the campaign was over, she continued for all of her life to be a source of inspiration and empowerment for women. In those early days of the second wave of the American women's movement, the movement defined women on what we did not have, what we did not have access to. What was it we didn't have? Equal pay for equal work. It is hard to believe we were not included in research protocols at NIH. And when it came to having access to credit, we could not get a loan or a mortgage in our own name in many circumstances. We needed a husband, a father, or a brother to sign for it. But when Gerry was chosen for Vice President, she showed us what we could be, what modern women in America had become. Women felt if we could go for the White House, we could go for anything. Gerry inspired.

On the night of July 19, 1984, in San Francisco at the Mosconi Center, Gerry gave her acceptance speech. She became the first woman to be nominated for Vice President for a major party. What a night. I was there--the thrill, the excitement in the room, the turbo energy that was there: 10,000 people jammed the Mosconi Center. Guy delegates gave their tickets away to alternates, to their daughters, to people who worked and helped out. They wanted to be there. People brought their children. They carried them. They put them on their shoulders to see what was about to occur.

When Gerry Ferraro walked on that stage, she electrified all of us. The convention gave her a 10-minute standing and resounding ovation. We couldn't sit down because we knew a barrier had been broken. And for the rest, as she history, there would be more on the way.

The campaign was hard fought. She traveled over 55,000 miles, visited 85 cities, campaigned her heart out. But it was not meant to be. The ticket lost to Reagan-Bush. But though she lost the election, she did not lose her way. Gerry never gave up and never gave in. Her storied career continued: a teacher at Harvard, a U.N. Ambassador on human rights, always teaching, always inspiring, always empowering thousands of women here and around the world.

Then in 1998, she was diagnosed with blood cancer. Once again, she was determined not to give up and not to give in. She began the greatest campaign of her life. She began the campaign for her own life. She fought her cancer. She not only fought her cancer, she also fought for cancer victims. She forged a relationship with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison as well as my friendship. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison will tell the story herself. Her brother Allan Bailey suffered from the same disease as Gerry. They met through an advocacy group on multiple myeloma. Allan Bailey and Gerry Ferraro joined hands and joined together and Kay Bailey Hutchison and I did, and we introduced the Gerry Ferraro Research Investment and Education Act. I wanted it to be Ferraro-Bailey, but Allan graciously said, Gerry is a marquis name. She will attract a lot of attention, and we can get more money for research and more interest in this dreaded disease.

That legislation passed. It showed sometimes when we come together out of common adversity, we find common cause and we get things done. That bill passed, and it is changing lives.

Gerry did various clinical trials. Often we talked. This is what she said to me during the last few weeks. She said: I am glad I could be in those clinical trials. In many ways they helped me live. But we also knew the research would provide lessons so that others could live. Once again, her mantra was: Never give up, never give in. She had toughness, persistence, tenacity, and unfailing optimism in the face of adversity.

I believe it came from her own compelling and often riveting story. It was that personal story that brought us together. We were both from European ethnic backgrounds: She Italian, my proud Polish heritage. We grew up in neighborhoods that were urban villages. Her father owned a small neighborhood dime store. My father owned a grocery store, and they were very much involved with their customers and community. We had strong mothers who wanted to make sure we had good educations. When Gerry's dad died, Gerry's mother took a job in the garment industry. She sewed little beads on wedding dresses to make sure her brother and Gerry had an education. Gerry did have that education. She went to Marymount. She became a scholarship girl because she was so smart and had so much talent. She felt it was the nuns who played such a big part in her life. They coached her to be smart, and they coached her to be a great debater. They taught her about her faith. For her, her faith was about the beatitudes, especially the one that said: Hunger and thirst after justice.

The other day when Gerry and I were talking, she reminded me that not only did she go to Marymount, but so did Lady Gaga. She said: I am just sorry I can't live to go to more alumni associations.

Then there was John, her beloved husband, a love story for the ages. I was there at the church over a year ago when they renewed their vows for their 50th anniversary. Their vows were not just for a day or for a year or a decade. They believed their vows were for an eternity. Gerry loved her husband, and she loved her children Donna, John, and Laura. She was so proud of them--one a doctor, one an accomplished businessman, another a TV producer and also worked on Wall Street. And the grandchildren, there were always the pictures and the stories of their many storied accomplishments.

Gerry Ferraro loved her family. She loved her extended family. That went to her friends and her community. She loved America. Because she believed, as she said to me: Only in America, Barbara, could somebody who started out in a regular neighborhood, whose father passed away, leaving a mother who taught her grit and determination, go on to run for the Vice Presidency of the United States, to be an Ambassador for human rights, and to make a difference in the lives of her family and her community.

Gerry, we will miss you, but your legacy will live forever.

Mr. President, I now turn to the Senator from California, Barbara Boxer, and then to Senator Hutchison.

She was beautiful.

Mr. President, I say to Senator Hutchison, the time is allocated as 5 minutes, but I know you want to speak and were a very dear friend. Please proceed.

Mr. President, I yield the floor to Senator Snowe.

Mr. President, I rise in reluctant support of another short-term CR because I am absolutely against a government shutdown.

But enough is enough. We are 6 months into the fiscal year and no closer to having a budget than the day we started. The American people want a budget that is frugal, on their side and brings stability to their lives. Both parties must come together and agree to sensible budget cuts for remainder of this year. But cuts are not a strategy to reduce the deficit. Cuts are a tool, not a strategy. We must also tackle the items that are responsible for adding to our deficit.

We cannot continue a cycle of cutting $2 billion every 2 weeks. That is no way to govern. Even though many of the cuts in the new CR are cuts that I agree with, short-term CRs are a government shutdown by proxy. I don't want a government shutdown. I am fighting to prevent it. But we cannot fund the government with two to three week payments. It is bad for Federal workers, contractors, families and the economy.

Senate Democrats have initiated cuts. First we cut $41 billion from the

President's budget request. Then we offered to cut another $10 billion for a total of $51 billion in cuts. But our offer was rejected. Republicans want to cut $100 billion. We met them halfway. But that wasn't good enough. Whether we cut $100 billion at once or several billion at a time in short term CRs, this is not a strategy to reduce the deficit and will hurt middle class families.

I am for cuts. The biggest cut I want to make is to the unemployment rate. Last week, I voted for Chairman Inouye's package with $51 billion in cuts. And in my own CJS bill, I have agreed to cut agency overhead by 10 percent, and cut agency party funds by 25 percent.

I am for making cuts to programs that middle class families don't depend on for their survival. Let's end lavish subsidies for oil and gas companies to save $4 billion each year before we cut Head Start and Child Care by $1 billion. Let's stop the tax breaks for corporations that send jobs overseas to save $5 billion before we cut afterschool programs by $100 million. Let's stop subsidizing big agribusiness to save another $5 billion a year before we cut Pell grants for middle class kids by more than $600. And let's end the war and bring our troops home which costs $1.1 billion a week in Iraq and $2.5 billion a week in Afghanistan before we ask our military men and women and their families to sacrifice any more for our country.

The uncertainty of these short-term CRs is bad for workers and contractors. One-hundred thirty-thousand Federal employees and tens of thousands more contractors live and work in Maryland. These are some of the most dedicated, hardworking people in our Nation. They make sure the food we eat is safe, find cures for the most devastating diseases, and make sure seniors get their checks every month. At Goddard Space Flight Center in Prince George's County there are 9,100 employees 3,400 civil servants and 5,700 contractors leading the world in green science initiatives. Of these 9,100 workers, 65 percent are scientists, engineers and technicians taking us into the next century with research on the Earth and its climate and leading missions to learn about the Sun, Moon, Mercury and Saturn.

Maryland's Federal employees win Nobel Prizes. Dr. Bill Phillips of the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg shared the 1997 Physics Nobel Prize for development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light, making it possible for us to study atoms with unprecedented precision. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu was one of his co-winners. Dr. Martin Rodbell of NIH shared the 1994 Nobel Prize in Medicine for his discovery of G-proteins and the principles of signal transduction in cellular communication. Dr. John C. Mather of NASA Goddard shared the 2006 Nobel in Physics for a discovery that has enabled precise measurements of the first moments of the universe. Whether they have won a Nobel Prize or provide the petri dishes or support services for this important work, these are hard working federal employees and contractors who are duty and mission driven.

In Prince George's County, I heard from a small business owner who does contract business with the government. Over the years she has grown her business with help from the Small Business Administration. Her company graduated from the SBA's 8(a) business development program, which was created to help small and disadvantaged companies compete. By taking advantage of the resources offered like mentoring, business counseling, training, financial assistance and technical assistance she grew to a $43 million business based in Maryland with divisions in other states. She's a success story. She asked me, ``What should we do if the government shuts down?'' She's afraid that the gains she's made could all be lost in a shutdown. At a time when we are seeing signs of economic recovery Congress should be nurturing this trend with predictable, stable funding for small business owners, not destroying it.

I support Federal employees and contractors. I support the mission of our government agencies and I support providing the money needed to carry out their mandates. But I don't support a government shutdown.

I support cuts. But cuts are not a strategy to reduce the deficit. Cuts are a tool, but they are not the only tool. We need a more thoughtful approach. We need a real strategy.

I will vote for today's CR but we cannot continue to pass short-term spending bills. Both sides must come to agree on a long-term budget for remainder of fiscal year.

Mr. President, in honor of World Social Work Day, I rise today to introduce the Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young, Jr. Social Work Reinvestment Act and the Clinical Social Work Medicare Equity Act of 2011. I am proud to introduce legislation that will reduce the shortage of social workers in our nation and properly reimburse social workers for the services they provide.

Social workers play a crucial role combating the social problems facing our nation and are essential providers in our health care system. Our health care and social service needs have drastically increased over the past decade and will continue to do so in the next decade. We must have the workforce in place to make sure that our returning soldiers have access to mental health services, our elderly maintain their independence in the communities in which they live, and abused children are placed in safe homes. Social workers provide mental health therapy, caregiver and family counseling, health education, program coordination, and case management. In these tough economic times, social workers have an essential role in keeping communities together and helping individuals and families cope with the stresses they are facing. Social workers are vital to America's social safety net.

The Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young, Jr. Social Work Reinvestment Act provides grants to social workers, identifies workforce challenges and resource needs, and determines how any workforce shortage will affect the communities social workers serve. I am honored to introduce this bill named after two social visionaries, Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young. Dorothy Height, who passed away last year, was a pioneer of the civil rights movement. Like me, she began her career as a case worker and continued to fight for social justice. Whitney Young, another trailblazer of the civil rights movement, also began his career transforming our social landscape as a social worker. He helped create President Johnson's War on Poverty and has served as President of the National Association of Social Workers.

This bill is about continued investment in social work. It provides grants for social work education, research, and training. These grants will fund community-based programs of excellence and provide scholarships to train the next generation of social workers. This bill addresses the recruitment and retention of social workers and will result in a renewed focus on improving social worker workplace safety. According to the National Association of Social Workers, 44 percent of social workers surveyed have faced personal safety issues when on the job. In addition, this bill will help identify and disseminate evidence-based best practices in social work interventions. This bill also establishes a national coordination center that will allow social education, advocacy and research institutions to collaborate and work together. The coordination center will facilitate gathering and distributing social work research to make the most effective use of the information we have on how social work service improves our social fabric. This bill also creates a media campaign that will promote social work. This bill gives social work the attention it deserves.

As a social worker, I understand the critical role social workers have in the overall care of our populations. Social workers can be found in every facet of community life--in hospitals, mental health clinics, senior centers, and private agencies that serve individuals and families in need. Social workers are there to help struggling students, returning soldiers, and the chronically ill. Oftentimes, socials workers are the only available option for mental health care in rural and underserved urban areas. Yet there are not enough social workers to meet these needs. By 2018, it is estimated an additional 100,000 social workers will be needed. We need to get our workforce in place today so that we can meet the needs of our population, particularly our aging Americans. The first of the baby boomers turn 65 this year. The aging tsunami will hit us. We must be prepared.

I believe that social work is full of great opportunities, both to serve and to lead. Social work is about putting our values into action. Social workers are among our best and brightest, our most committed and compassionate. They are at the frontlines of providing care, often putting themselves in dangerous and violent situations. Social workers have the ability to provide psychological, emotional, and social support--quite simply, the ability to change lives. I think we can do better by our constituents including our servicemembers, seniors, and children. We must make sure we have the social workers in place to meet their needs. I'm fighting to make sure we do.

I also stand on the Senate floor today to introduce the Clinical Social Work Medicare Equity Act of 2009. This bill ensures that clinical social workers receive Medicare reimbursement for the mental health services they provide in skilled nursing facilities. Under the current system, social workers cannot

bill Medicare directly for the services they provide. Psychologists and psychiatrists, who provide similar counseling, are able to separately bill Medicare for their services.

Since my first days in Congress, I have been fighting to protect and strengthen the safety of our Nation's seniors. Making sure that seniors have access to quality, affordable mental health care is an important part of this fight. I know that millions of seniors do not have access to, or are not receiving, the mental health services they urgently need. Five million seniors are affected by depression, yet few ever receive treatment. According to the American Psychological Association, 20 percent of people over the age of 55 have a mental health disorder and 2/3 of nursing home residents have a mental or behavioral health issue, but less than 3 percent receive treatment. These mental health disorders, which include severe depression and debilitating anxiety, interfere with a person's ability to carry out activities of daily living and adversely affect their quality of life. Furthermore, older people account for 20 percent of suicide deaths in the U.S., and white men age 85 or older have the highest suicide rate of any age group. Every year nearly 5,000 older Americans kill themselves. This is unacceptable and must be addressed.

This bill helps residents of skilled nursing facilities across the country get the mental health and psychosocial services they need. It ensures that seniors living in underserved urban and rural areas, where clinical social workers are often the only available option for mental health care, continue to receive the treatment they need. Clinical social workers, much like psychologists and psychiatrists, diagnose and treat mental illnesses. In fact, clinical social workers are the primary mental health providers for nursing home residents and seniors residing in rural environments. Unlike other mental health providers, clinical social workers cannot bill Medicare directly for the important services they provide to their patients. Protecting seniors' access to clinical social workers ensures that our most vulnerable citizens get the quality, affordable mental health care they need. This bill will correct this inequity and make sure clinical social workers get the payments and respect they deserve.

Before the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, clinical social workers billed Medicare Part B directly for mental health services they provided in nursing facilities for each patient they served. Under the Prospective Payment System, services provided by clinical social workers are lumped, or ``bundled,'' along with the services of other health care providers for the purposes of billing and payments. Psychologists and psychiatrists, who provide similar counseling, were exempted from this system and continue to bill Medicare directly. This bill would exempt clinical social workers, like their colleagues, from the Prospective Payment System, and would make sure that clinical social workers are paid for the services they provide to patients in skilled nursing facilities.

This bill is about more than paperwork and payment procedures. This bill is about equal access to Medicare payments for the equal and important work done by clinical social workers. It is about making sure our nation's most vulnerable citizens have access to quality, affordable mental health care. The overarching goal we should be striving to achieve for our seniors is an improved quality of life. Without clinical social workers, many nursing home residents would never get the counseling they need when faced with a life threatening illness or the loss of a loved one. I think we can do better by our nation's seniors. I am fighting to make sure we do.

As a social worker, I have been on the frontlines of helping people cope with issues in their everyday lives. I started off fighting for abused children, making sure they were placed in safe homes. I will continue to fight every day for our children, seniors, and families on the floor of the United States Senate.

The Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young, Jr. Social Work Reinvestment Act and the Clinical Social Work Medicare Equity Act of 2011 are both strongly supported by the National Association of Social Workers. I also want to thank Senator Inouye for his cosponsorship of the Clinical Social Work Medicare Equity Act of 2012 and thank Senator Begich, Senator Cardin, and Senator Inouye for their cosponsorship of the Social Work Reinvestment Act. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact these two important pieces of legislation.

Mr. President, in honor of World Social Work Day, I rise today to introduce the Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young, Jr. Social Work Reinvestment Act and the Clinical Social Work Medicare Equity Act of 2011. I am proud to introduce legislation that will reduce the shortage of social workers in our nation and properly reimburse social workers for the services they provide.

Social workers play a crucial role combating the social problems facing our nation and are essential providers in our health care system. Our health care and social service needs have drastically increased over the past decade and will continue to do so in the next decade. We must have the workforce in place to make sure that our returning soldiers have access to mental health services, our elderly maintain their independence in the communities in which they live, and abused children are placed in safe homes. Social workers provide mental health therapy, caregiver and family counseling, health education, program coordination, and case management. In these tough economic times, social workers have an essential role in keeping communities together and helping individuals and families cope with the stresses they are facing. Social workers are vital to America's social safety net.

The Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young, Jr. Social Work Reinvestment Act provides grants to social workers, identifies workforce challenges and resource needs, and determines how any workforce shortage will affect the communities social workers serve. I am honored to introduce this bill named after two social visionaries, Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young. Dorothy Height, who passed away last year, was a pioneer of the civil rights movement. Like me, she began her career as a case worker and continued to fight for social justice. Whitney Young, another trailblazer of the civil rights movement, also began his career transforming our social landscape as a social worker. He helped create President Johnson's War on Poverty and has served as President of the National Association of Social Workers.

This bill is about continued investment in social work. It provides grants for social work education, research, and training. These grants will fund community-based programs of excellence and provide scholarships to train the next generation of social workers. This bill addresses the recruitment and retention of social workers and will result in a renewed focus on improving social worker workplace safety. According to the National Association of Social Workers, 44 percent of social workers surveyed have faced personal safety issues when on the job. In addition, this bill will help identify and disseminate evidence-based best practices in social work interventions. This bill also establishes a national coordination center that will allow social education, advocacy and research institutions to collaborate and work together. The coordination center will facilitate gathering and distributing social work research to make the most effective use of the information we have on how social work service improves our social fabric. This bill also creates a media campaign that will promote social work. This bill gives social work the attention it deserves.

As a social worker, I understand the critical role social workers have in the overall care of our populations. Social workers can be found in every facet of community life--in hospitals, mental health clinics, senior centers, and private agencies that serve individuals and families in need. Social workers are there to help struggling students, returning soldiers, and the chronically ill. Oftentimes, socials workers are the only available option for mental health care in rural and underserved urban areas. Yet there are not enough social workers to meet these needs. By 2018, it is estimated an additional 100,000 social workers will be needed. We need to get our workforce in place today so that we can meet the needs of our population, particularly our aging Americans. The first of the baby boomers turn 65 this year. The aging tsunami will hit us. We must be prepared.

I believe that social work is full of great opportunities, both to serve and to lead. Social work is about putting our values into action. Social workers are among our best and brightest, our most committed and compassionate. They are at the frontlines of providing care, often putting themselves in dangerous and violent situations. Social workers have the ability to provide psychological, emotional, and social support--quite simply, the ability to change lives. I think we can do better by our constituents including our servicemembers, seniors, and children. We must make sure we have the social workers in place to meet their needs. I'm fighting to make sure we do.

I also stand on the Senate floor today to introduce the Clinical Social Work Medicare Equity Act of 2009. This bill ensures that clinical social workers receive Medicare reimbursement for the mental health services they provide in skilled nursing facilities. Under the current system, social workers cannot

bill Medicare directly for the services they provide. Psychologists and psychiatrists, who provide similar counseling, are able to separately bill Medicare for their services.

Since my first days in Congress, I have been fighting to protect and strengthen the safety of our Nation's seniors. Making sure that seniors have access to quality, affordable mental health care is an important part of this fight. I know that millions of seniors do not have access to, or are not receiving, the mental health services they urgently need. Five million seniors are affected by depression, yet few ever receive treatment. According to the American Psychological Association, 20 percent of people over the age of 55 have a mental health disorder and 2/3 of nursing home residents have a mental or behavioral health issue, but less than 3 percent receive treatment. These mental health disorders, which include severe depression and debilitating anxiety, interfere with a person's ability to carry out activities of daily living and adversely affect their quality of life. Furthermore, older people account for 20 percent of suicide deaths in the U.S., and white men age 85 or older have the highest suicide rate of any age group. Every year nearly 5,000 older Americans kill themselves. This is unacceptable and must be addressed.

This bill helps residents of skilled nursing facilities across the country get the mental health and psychosocial services they need. It ensures that seniors living in underserved urban and rural areas, where clinical social workers are often the only available option for mental health care, continue to receive the treatment they need. Clinical social workers, much like psychologists and psychiatrists, diagnose and treat mental illnesses. In fact, clinical social workers are the primary mental health providers for nursing home residents and seniors residing in rural environments. Unlike other mental health providers, clinical social workers cannot bill Medicare directly for the important services they provide to their patients. Protecting seniors' access to clinical social workers ensures that our most vulnerable citizens get the quality, affordable mental health care they need. This bill will correct this inequity and make sure clinical social workers get the payments and respect they deserve.

Before the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, clinical social workers billed Medicare Part B directly for mental health services they provided in nursing facilities for each patient they served. Under the Prospective Payment System, services provided by clinical social workers are lumped, or ``bundled,'' along with the services of other health care providers for the purposes of billing and payments. Psychologists and psychiatrists, who provide similar counseling, were exempted from this system and continue to bill Medicare directly. This bill would exempt clinical social workers, like their colleagues, from the Prospective Payment System, and would make sure that clinical social workers are paid for the services they provide to patients in skilled nursing facilities.

This bill is about more than paperwork and payment procedures. This bill is about equal access to Medicare payments for the equal and important work done by clinical social workers. It is about making sure our nation's most vulnerable citizens have access to quality, affordable mental health care. The overarching goal we should be striving to achieve for our seniors is an improved quality of life. Without clinical social workers, many nursing home residents would never get the counseling they need when faced with a life threatening illness or the loss of a loved one. I think we can do better by our nation's seniors. I am fighting to make sure we do.

As a social worker, I have been on the frontlines of helping people cope with issues in their everyday lives. I started off fighting for abused children, making sure they were placed in safe homes. I will continue to fight every day for our children, seniors, and families on the floor of the United States Senate.

The Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young, Jr. Social Work Reinvestment Act and the Clinical Social Work Medicare Equity Act of 2011 are both strongly supported by the National Association of Social Workers. I also want to thank Senator Inouye for his cosponsorship of the Clinical Social Work Medicare Equity Act of 2012 and thank Senator Begich, Senator Cardin, and Senator Inouye for their cosponsorship of the Social Work Reinvestment Act. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact these two important pieces of legislation.

Mr. President, on Thursday I reintroduced the National Metro Safety Act with Senators Cardin, Murray, Warner and Webb. I first introduced this bill on July 23, 2009, after the deadly crash on the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's Metro system that killed 9 people and injured more than 50.

This legislation does three things. First, it gives the U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary the authority to establish and enforce national safety standards for metro systems across America. Second, it requires the U.S. Department of Transportation to work with the National Transportation Safety Board to develop these standards. Third, it requires the U.S. Department of Transportation to implement NTSB's most wanted safety standards. These include: crashworthiness, data event recorder, emergency entry and evacuation standards for rail cars; and hour of service regulations for train operators.

On Monday June, 22, 2009, the unthinkable happened right here in our Nation's Capital. A Metro train struck another train during evening rush hour. Eight passengers were killed including one Marylander from Hyattsville and one Metro employee. Over 50 passengers were injured by the crash. It was the worst accident in Metro's history.

Approximately, 1 year later, the NTSB released its report from its investigation of the crash. This was the saddest report with grim revelations. It found that the Metro crash could have been prevented and nine lives could have been saved. The NTSB's investigation found two probable causes: a faulty track circuit and the lack of a track circuit verification test. This test would have identified the malfunctioning circuit and could have prevented the crash.

The NTSB also found attributing causes to the crash. These included a lack of a safety culture at Metro; failure to monitor the train control system and replace its oldest railcars; lack of a maintenance plan from the circuit manufacturer; Metro Board and the Tri-State Oversight Committee's ineffective safety oversight; and the Federal Transit Administration's lack of authority to provide safety oversight.

In its report, the NTSB also made 23 recommendations to prevent future fatal crashes. Among these was the recommendation to the U.S. Department of Transportation to seek the authority to provide safety oversight to transit systems and to establish and enforce national safety standards. The NTSB did its job and now it is time for Congress to do ours. We must pass this bill to give the U.S. Department of Transportation the authority it needs to establish Federal safety standards.

We have Federal safety standards for airplanes, commuter rail, and buses, but none for metro systems. Rail transit is the only transportation mode without Federal safety standards, oversight and enforcement even though it has over 14 million daily riders. This is more than U.S. airlines with 2 million domestic flights daily or passenger railroads like Amtrak and MARC each with 74,430 and 30,000 daily riders respectfully. Up until now, safety has been left up to the states. Each State has its own safety and enforcement practices. States have oversight agencies with very little staff, small budgets and varying amount of expertise. These oversight agencies also aren't always independent of the transit systems they oversee.

I know the Obama administration has its bill to establish standards and the Banking Committee has its bill. I support both of these but let me tell you why I am crazy about my bill. It requires the U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary to implement the NTSB's most wanted. These are the recommendations the NTSB has consistently called for.

Congress must do two things. First, it must meet its Federal funding obligation for Metro. We must provide $150 million for Metro in the year-long continuing resolution. I want to thank Senator Murray for including these vital funds in the Senate's bill. This is really $300 million for Metro with the local matching funds.

Metro needs this money to implement the NTSB's recommendations and prevent future crashes. This money is essential to Metro's reform. It is American's subway. This isn't a local pork barrel. America needs it to go to work. Metro serves not only our civilian population, but also the many people working at the Pentagon every day that need to be at their duty station and their battle station. We need Metro to be safe and operational reliable.

Second, Congress must pass this legislation. We owe it to the people that ride Metro and we owe it to the people that work at Metro. We can never forget the people that died that fateful day. I urge the Senate to pass safety legislation so no community ever has to suffer the loss that the National Capital Region did during the summer of 2009.

I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise to address the Senate on the consequences of where we are in the debate on appropriations and the harsh and punitive consequences of H.R. 1. However, I cannot let the comments made during the last half hour go unchallenged.

First, I wish to comment on the remarks of the Senator from Oklahoma on duplication in government. I so respect the Senator from Oklahoma. We have worked on many fiscal reform issues. But he went over a list, program by program by program, of where he says we have duplication. I don't challenge his facts, but I do challenge his inertia. If these programs have been in existence and have been duplicative and denied value to the taxpayer, where has he been? The Republicans were in charge for 10 years, from 2000 to 2008. They were in charge of all three branches of the government. So if he didn't like duplication, they had the Presidency, the House, and they had the Senate. Why didn't they change it? Now all of a sudden they have religion. I don't know what faith that is, but they now have the desire to talk about it. If they were serious about ending duplication, it should have started a long time ago.

Second, bring the ideas forth, look for cosponsors from other reform- minded people such as the Presiding Officer and myself. Let's end the duplication. But let's end the duplicity and in the way we talk about duplication. I am tired of blaming Barack Obama, who has been President for 2 years, for everything that is perceived as wrong with the United States. Where were they?

I must credit the Senator from Oklahoma. He has often brought fiscal folly to the attention of the Senate. I was with him when we fought lavish meatballs at $4 and $7 apiece that he found. When he showed it to me, I joined with him in the reform package. I loved it, and I look forward to working with him. But don't act holier than thou now about duplication.

Now let's go to the abortion topic. I will not change this conversation into the ``A'' word. However, the Senator talked about Planned Parenthood being profit making. It cannot be. It is a nonprofit. I am not even going to argue additional revenue. He doesn't want to give money to Planned Parenthood because they make a profit. I won't debate him on that. But the next time he supports an oil subsidy, I am going to oppose it because the oil companies make a profit. I am going to fight tooth and nail to end the lavish subsidies we give on oil and gas. If we are not going to give it to Planned Parenthood because they make money, then I will not support giving it to oil companies because they make money. So there. I have said it, and I am proud of it.

This is no laughing matter, what we are dealing with on appropriations. H.R. 1 will have a Draconian effect on the middle class and a Draconian effect on jobs. Our economy is very fragile. We are barely making a recovery. If we pass H.R. 1, we will place our Nation at risk because of the impact of the cuts on those who really do protect America.

It will further pummel the middle class. I am not going to stand for further pummeling of the middle class.

I am not just a Senator from Maryland. Like the Presiding Officer, I am a Senator for Maryland. If we take a look at what H.R. 1 does, it really whacks at Maryland's middle-class families. It cuts job training, education and access to higher education, much-needed childcare and afterschool programs. Right this very minute, if H.R. 1 passed, we would have people lose their Pell grants. A tremendous number of Marylanders would lose their Pell grants, not only numerically but their grant would be cut by over $500. For a lot of people, that is the money that helps buy textbooks, pays the lab fees so they can go on to be a lab tech or a cyber tech in the new economy.

Let's take a look at the children. They talked about the right to life. I am for a right to life after one is born. I think after one is born, they ought to have a shot. I respect their position. They have to respect ours. Under their Draconian cuts, 2,471 Maryland children would lose Head Start opportunities. Head Start is what gets them learning ready so they can take advantage of our public schools and move on in life. Let's have it for these little children.

Then there are those who say we need to compete. I want to compete too in the global marketplace. So what does that mean? It means we have to fund NIH. Under H.R. 1, NIH will be cut $1 billion. In cancer screening alone, 36,000 Marylanders will lose that opportunity, and 5 million will lose it nationwide. If we look at program after program and how it affects women and children and access to education, we are the net losers. If we are going to out-educate and out-innovate, we cannot pass H.R. 1, which takes me to why it is bad for Maryland jobs. We have the great honor of representing iconic Federal institutions: the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Standards, Goddard Space Agency, Goddard and Hopkins Space Telescope Institute, home to the great Hubbell telescope which serves the world in what it does. The fact is, it takes people to work there. If we do these Draconian cuts, it will have a tremendous impact. But I am not talking about only government jobs. I am talking about private sector jobs.

If H.R. 1 passes, we will lose a tremendous amount in Community Development Block Grant money. We will lose $11 million in Community Development Block Grant money. So whether one is in Baltimore City, making its comeback under Mayor Stephanie Rawlings, or in a small rural county, it could result in 1,000 jobs being lost in construction where we could be creating new housing and new opportunities for economic development. The Speaker of the House says if it is going to cost jobs, so be it. Well, so be it is not OK with me.

If we look at transportation alone, the cuts in transportation will cause Maryland to lose close to $100 million to fix highways, byways, beltways, the kinds of things we need to do that deal with congestion and will save lives because we will have safer roads, and create jobs in construction. That is over 3,157 Maryland jobs. Those are private sector construction jobs.

The Presiding Officer and I have visited our great Maryland biotech companies. They have NIH doing the basic research. They value add it, and then they go to FDA. FDA makes sure our prescription drugs are safe. When they have the FDA brand of approval, we can sell them anywhere in the world. But under these cuts, we are going to eliminate 5,000 jobs. What that means is, we are going to further set back the backlog in order to get a biotech, a pharmaceutical or a medical device approved. So it is going to cost us jobs in government in Maryland at FDA, but it is also going to cost jobs in the private sector in the biotech field, the medical device field, and the pharmaceutical field.

Right now the Social Security Administration--the people who calculate and make sure the checks go out on time to the right person-- is facing possible layoffs and furloughs. We are facing nationwide an immediate possibility of furloughs of 3,500 people. What does that mean? The checks will go out, yes. But that means if one is applying for a benefit, they are going to wait a long time. If they have any kind of disability, the backlog could increase to as much as 3 to 4 years. They can't apply for Social Security disability. If they are applying for disability, it means they are too sick to work. So we are going to lay off the very people who make sure our checks are developed in a timely way.

I have more to say, and I will say it as the debate continues. But if we pass H.R. 1, it is a job-killing, middle-class pummeling bill that I am going to vote no on and urge my colleagues to do the same.

I also wish to discuss the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies, CJS, in the Senate Continuing Resolution, CR.

CJS in the Inouye CR totals $53.6 billion, which is $6.9 billion or 11 percent below the President's request for FY 2011. This is in contrast to the House Republican CR, which is $900 million lower. I support the Inouye CR and oppose the House Republican CR because it would undermine our ability to outeducation, outinnovate, and outbuild the rest of the world.

Make no mistake, the Inouye CR makes painful cuts, and further cuts will hurt even more. I would like my colleagues to know I will go no more. I am finished cutting.

Under the Inouye CR, CJS cuts $420 million from state and local law enforcement grants, a 7 percent cut to every grant program, including COPS hiring grants, Byrne grants, grants for bulletproof vests for police officers who walk the thin blue line, and grants to reduce the backlog of DNA evidence.

The CR terminates the Weed and Seed program, which helps local communities fight gangs and crime. State and local law enforcement agencies will lose Federal funding they need during a time of austerity in their own budgets.

Federal law enforcement is funded at substantially below the President's request in this CR. Specifically, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, is $500 million below President's request, and the Drug Enforcement Agency, DEA, is $110 million below President's request. The hiring freeze will continue. Vacant positions won't be filled--not just in headquarters--but in our local communities where agents are partners in fighting drugs and crime, and tracking down sexual predators who prey on our children.

The CR provides $6.3 billion for Bureau of Prisons salaries and expenses, which is $245.5 million below the President's FY 2011 budget request. Prisons will continue to have serious and dangerous overcrowding, putting the safety of our prison guards at risk.

The Justice Department's core capabilities will also be degraded. The CR cuts $216 million from internal technology upgrades that are supposed to give the Department better financial management and accountability, and better communications with State and local law enforcement.

This CR cuts the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, by $943 million. This cut will jeopardize efforts to fix ongoing problems with the development of NOAA's polar satellites by not providing new funding for the Joint Polar Satellite System. This could lead to a gap in weather forecasting data that the military and our private sector rely upon.

The cuts in this CR will already halt plans to pump funds into scientific research and discovery that leads to innovation and economic growth, and education programs that build the next generation of scientists and innovators. Specifically, it cuts the National Aeronautics and Space Administration by $461 million, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, by $165 million and the National Science Foundation, NSF, by $573 million. NASA will continue to follow the authorizing bill with new path forward for human spaceflight, but the Agency won't be able to initiate new space technology programs. NIST will not have funding for new Technology Innovation Partnership, TIP, grants or for competitive science building construction. NSF will be halted on its path to doubling.

While the CR gives the Patent and Trademark Office full access to fees paid by inventors, it cuts the International Trade Administration, ITA, $93 million less than the fiscal year 2011 requested level. This will delay efforts to boost the economy and create jobs by helping more U.S. farmers, manufacturers, and service providers sell their products overseas.

We made many responsible cuts in the CR. It eliminates the $48 million Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee program, which has not made a loan since 2003, and cuts $44 million from the Census, eliminating duplicative and overlapping analysis performed by other agencies or issued in other ways by Census. The Inouye CR also eliminates one time construction projects at the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, and the U.S. Marshals Service.

Even with all that, we are being asked to do more. How much more is it responsible to cut? I want my colleagues to know, I am done cutting.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Teaching Geography is Fundamental Act, introduced by Senator Cochran and myself last week. Increasing geography literacy is essential to STEM education, and investing in our children's science

education is essential to making America smarter and more innovative. This bill would authorize the Secretary of Education to meet that critical need by doling out competitive grants to proven nonprofits with a track record of promoting geography literacy in our schools through activities such as teacher professional development and research. As chairwoman of the appropriation subcommittee that funds National Science Foundation, NSF, I have directed National Science Foundation's education team to work with experts like National Geographic to strengthen geography education. NSF is now working with National Geographic Society to explore new ways to improve geography teaching, training, and research in our schools. This pilot program has proven successful and deserves national support.

For a number of years, I have promoted geography locally in my home State of Maryland by working with geographic trailblazers like National Geographic Society's Chesapeake watershed education programs and Pat Noonan's Chesapeake Bay Interpretive Buoys--bringing real-time environmental information to Maryland schoolchildren in a meaningful and understandable way. I can tell that making geography education local is where to start. Hook a child's interest with what they know, and their geographic knowledge will open up to the rest of the world.

I strongly support this bill because I know it can enhance tremendous work already being done. National Geographic is a great example of an organization that could partner with the Department of Education to provide schools with the intellectual and organizational capacity to effectively teach geography literacy. It is an institution whose members have explored the world's tallest peaks and discovered our ocean's deepest depths. They support exploration and discovery--from Peary and Hanson's expedition to the North Pole in 1906 to Ballard's discovery of the Titanic in 1985. But they also fund geography education programming through grants to educational organizations and by providing professional development to classroom teachers. Their magazine alone has an incredible impact because of its loyal and massive readership of more than 360 million people. There is no need for the administration to reinvent the wheel when there are willing geographic partners ready and willing to take this Teaching Geography is Fundamental bill and run with it.

We live in an age when our innovative economy is becoming ever more global and new cyber technology connects schoolchildren not only to their friend across the street but to their friend across the ocean, Better geography literacy at a young age--along with an understanding and appreciation of other cultures--is so important nowadays. I think it is both fitting and appropriate that we continue to encourage that curiosity with our children, and this bill helps us get there. That is why I am proud to cosponsor this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support it as well.