Floor Statements

Mr. President, I join my colleague Senator Whitehouse in welcoming Bishop Wolf to the Senate today. I commend Senator Whitehouse for his invitation. Bishop Wolf is not only a pastoral leader in our community, she is also a great community leader. She not only preaches the gospel, she lives the gospel.

As Senator Whitehouse indicated, she went on the mean streets of Providence, and there are such streets in every town in this country, to experience firsthand the travails and the troubles of people just trying to get by. That experience informed her ministry and informed her public positions, and we thank her for that. She has a global vision as well as a vision in Rhode Island. That global vision is a world inspired by American actions that is peaceful and progressive and finds opportunity for all.

So on behalf of the people of Rhode Island, I wish to thank her for her service, and I thank her especially for the grace she has brought to us today and has brought the State of Rhode Island as a result of her service.

Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator Whitehouse, I am introducing the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act of 2011.

For nearly a decade, I have worked to correct a serious flaw in our fisheries management system, which denies the fishermen of my state a voice in the management of many of the stocks that they catch and rely upon for their livelihoods.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act established eight regional fishery management councils to give fishermen and other stakeholders the leading role in developing the fishery management plans for federally regulated species. As such, the councils have enormous significance on the lives and livelihoods of fishermen. To ensure equitable representation, the statute sets out the states from which appointees are to be drawn for each council.

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the State of Rhode Island was granted voting membership on the New England Fishery Management Council, NEFMC, as NEFMC-managed stocks represent a significant percentage of landings and revenue for the State. However, while Rhode Island has an even larger stake in the Mid-Atlantic fishery it does not have voting representation on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, MAFMC, which currently consists of representatives from New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina.

Rhode Island's stake in the Mid-Atlantic fishery is hardly incidental. According to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, data, Rhode Island accounts for approximately a quarter of the catch from this fishery, and its landings are greater than the combined total of landings for the States of New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. In act, only one State, New Jersey, lands more MAFMC regulated species than Rhode Island.

This legislation offers a simple solution. Following current practice, the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act would create two seats on the MAFMC for Rhode Island: one seat appointed by the Secretary of Commerce based on recommendations from the Governor of Rhode Island, and a second seat filled by Rhode Island's principal state official with marine fishery management responsibility. To accommodate these new members, the MAFMC would increase in size from 21 voting members to 23.

Pursuant to a provision included in the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act of 2006 at my request, the MAFMC reported to Congress on this issue in 2007 and confirmed that there is a precedent for this proposal. As the report notes, North Carolina's representatives in Congress succeeded in adding that State to the MAFMC through an amendment to the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996. Like Rhode Island, a significant proportion of North Carolina's landed fish species were managed by the MAFMC, yet the State had no vote on the council.

With mounting economic, ecological, and regulatory challenges, it is more important than ever that Rhode Island's fishermen have a voice in the management of the fisheries they depend on. I look forward to working with Senator Whitehouse and my other colleagues to restore a measure of equity to the fisheries management process by passing the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing bipartisan legislation to provide new support for environmental education in our Nation's classrooms. I thank Senators Kirk, Bingaman, Cardin, Durbin, Gillibrand, Kerry, Lautenberg, Mikulski, Murray, Sanders, and Whitehouse for agreeing to be original cosponsors of the No Child Left Inside Act of 2011. Given the major environmental challenges we face today, our bill seeks to prioritize teaching our young people about their natural world. For more than three decades, environmental education has been a growing part of effective instruction in America's schools. Responding to the need to improve student achievement and prepare students for the 21st century economy, many schools throughout the Nation now offer some form of environmental education.

Yet, environmental education is facing a significant challenge. Many schools are being forced to scale back or eliminate environmental programs. As a result, fewer and fewer students are able to take part in related classroom instruction and field investigations, however effective or popular. State and local administrators, teachers, and environmental educators point to two factors behind this recent and disturbing shift: the unintended consequences of the No Child Left Behind Act and dwindling sources of funding for these critical programs.

The legislation that we are introducing today would address these two

concerns. First, it would provide a new professional development initiative to ensure that teachers possess the content knowledge and pedagogical skills to effectively teach environmental education in the classroom, including the use of innovative interdisciplinary and field- based learning strategies. Second, the bill would create incentives for states to develop a peer-reviewed comprehensive statewide environmental literacy plan to make sure prekindergarten, elementary, and secondary school students have a solid understanding of our planet and its natural resources. Lastly, the No Child Left Inside Act provides support for school districts to initiate, expand, or improve their environmental education curriculum, and for replication and dissemination of effective practices. This legislation has broad support among national and state environmental groups and educational groups.

The American public recognizes that the environment is already one of the dominant issues of the 21st century. In 2003, a National Science Foundation panel noted that ``in the coming decades, the public will more frequently be called upon to understand complex environmental issues, assess risk, evaluate proposed environmental plans and understand how individual decisions affect the environment at local and global scales. Creating a scientifically informed citizenry requires a concerted, systemic approach to environmental education . . .''. In the private sector, business leaders also increasingly believe that an environmentally literate workforce is critical to their long-term success. They recognize that better, more efficient environmental practices improve the bottom line and help position their companies for the future.

Environmental education is an important part of the solution to many of the problems facing our country today. It helps prepare the next generation with the skills and knowledge necessary to be competitive in the global economy. Studies have shown that it enhances student achievement in science and other core subjects and increases student engagement and critical thinking skills. It promotes healthy lifestyles by encouraging kids to get outside.

In Rhode Island, organizations such as the Rhode Island Environmental Education Association, Roger Williams Park Zoo, Save the Bay, the Nature Conservancy, and the Audubon Society as well as countless schools and teachers, reach out to children to offer educational and outdoor experiences that these children may never otherwise have, helping to inspire them to learn. Partnering with the Rhode Island Department of Education, these organizations have developed a statewide environmental literacy plan.

Similar efforts are taking place across the Nation. According to the National Association for Environmental Education, 40 states have taken steps towards developing similar plans to integrate environmental literacy into their statewide educational initiatives. Despite these extraordinary efforts, environmental education remains out of reach for too many kids.

That is why I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the No Child Left Inside Act of 2011.

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

Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator Whitehouse, I am introducing the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act of 2011.

For nearly a decade, I have worked to correct a serious flaw in our fisheries management system, which denies the fishermen of my state a voice in the management of many of the stocks that they catch and rely upon for their livelihoods.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act established eight regional fishery management councils to give fishermen and other stakeholders the leading role in developing the fishery management plans for federally regulated species. As such, the councils have enormous significance on the lives and livelihoods of fishermen. To ensure equitable representation, the statute sets out the states from which appointees are to be drawn for each council.

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the State of Rhode Island was granted voting membership on the New England Fishery Management Council, NEFMC, as NEFMC-managed stocks represent a significant percentage of landings and revenue for the State. However, while Rhode Island has an even larger stake in the Mid-Atlantic fishery it does not have voting representation on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, MAFMC, which currently consists of representatives from New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina.

Rhode Island's stake in the Mid-Atlantic fishery is hardly incidental. According to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, data, Rhode Island accounts for approximately a quarter of the catch from this fishery, and its landings are greater than the combined total of landings for the States of New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. In act, only one State, New Jersey, lands more MAFMC regulated species than Rhode Island.

This legislation offers a simple solution. Following current practice, the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act would create two seats on the MAFMC for Rhode Island: one seat appointed by the Secretary of Commerce based on recommendations from the Governor of Rhode Island, and a second seat filled by Rhode Island's principal state official with marine fishery management responsibility. To accommodate these new members, the MAFMC would increase in size from 21 voting members to 23.

Pursuant to a provision included in the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act of 2006 at my request, the MAFMC reported to Congress on this issue in 2007 and confirmed that there is a precedent for this proposal. As the report notes, North Carolina's representatives in Congress succeeded in adding that State to the MAFMC through an amendment to the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996. Like Rhode Island, a significant proportion of North Carolina's landed fish species were managed by the MAFMC, yet the State had no vote on the council.

With mounting economic, ecological, and regulatory challenges, it is more important than ever that Rhode Island's fishermen have a voice in the management of the fisheries they depend on. I look forward to working with Senator Whitehouse and my other colleagues to restore a measure of equity to the fisheries management process by passing the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing bipartisan legislation to provide new support for environmental education in our Nation's classrooms. I thank Senators Kirk, Bingaman, Cardin, Durbin, Gillibrand, Kerry, Lautenberg, Mikulski, Murray, Sanders, and Whitehouse for agreeing to be original cosponsors of the No Child Left Inside Act of 2011. Given the major environmental challenges we face today, our bill seeks to prioritize teaching our young people about their natural world. For more than three decades, environmental education has been a growing part of effective instruction in America's schools. Responding to the need to improve student achievement and prepare students for the 21st century economy, many schools throughout the Nation now offer some form of environmental education.

Yet, environmental education is facing a significant challenge. Many schools are being forced to scale back or eliminate environmental programs. As a result, fewer and fewer students are able to take part in related classroom instruction and field investigations, however effective or popular. State and local administrators, teachers, and environmental educators point to two factors behind this recent and disturbing shift: the unintended consequences of the No Child Left Behind Act and dwindling sources of funding for these critical programs.

The legislation that we are introducing today would address these two

concerns. First, it would provide a new professional development initiative to ensure that teachers possess the content knowledge and pedagogical skills to effectively teach environmental education in the classroom, including the use of innovative interdisciplinary and field- based learning strategies. Second, the bill would create incentives for states to develop a peer-reviewed comprehensive statewide environmental literacy plan to make sure prekindergarten, elementary, and secondary school students have a solid understanding of our planet and its natural resources. Lastly, the No Child Left Inside Act provides support for school districts to initiate, expand, or improve their environmental education curriculum, and for replication and dissemination of effective practices. This legislation has broad support among national and state environmental groups and educational groups.

The American public recognizes that the environment is already one of the dominant issues of the 21st century. In 2003, a National Science Foundation panel noted that ``in the coming decades, the public will more frequently be called upon to understand complex environmental issues, assess risk, evaluate proposed environmental plans and understand how individual decisions affect the environment at local and global scales. Creating a scientifically informed citizenry requires a concerted, systemic approach to environmental education . . .''. In the private sector, business leaders also increasingly believe that an environmentally literate workforce is critical to their long-term success. They recognize that better, more efficient environmental practices improve the bottom line and help position their companies for the future.

Environmental education is an important part of the solution to many of the problems facing our country today. It helps prepare the next generation with the skills and knowledge necessary to be competitive in the global economy. Studies have shown that it enhances student achievement in science and other core subjects and increases student engagement and critical thinking skills. It promotes healthy lifestyles by encouraging kids to get outside.

In Rhode Island, organizations such as the Rhode Island Environmental Education Association, Roger Williams Park Zoo, Save the Bay, the Nature Conservancy, and the Audubon Society as well as countless schools and teachers, reach out to children to offer educational and outdoor experiences that these children may never otherwise have, helping to inspire them to learn. Partnering with the Rhode Island Department of Education, these organizations have developed a statewide environmental literacy plan.

Similar efforts are taking place across the Nation. According to the National Association for Environmental Education, 40 states have taken steps towards developing similar plans to integrate environmental literacy into their statewide educational initiatives. Despite these extraordinary efforts, environmental education remains out of reach for too many kids.

That is why I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the No Child Left Inside Act of 2011.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce with my colleagues Senators Cochran, Murray, Rockefeller, and Whitehouse, the Strengthening Kids' Interest in Learning and Libraries Act bill.

Our bipartisan legislation will reauthorize and strengthen the school library program of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The key improvements to the program include ensuring that elementary, middle, and high school students are served; expanding professional development to include digital literacy instruction and reading and writing instruction across all grade levels; focusing on coordination and shared planning time between teachers and librarians; awarding grants for a period of three years; and ensuring that books and materials are appropriate for and gain the interest of students with special learning needs, including English learners.

The SKILLS Act will also strengthen Title I by asking state and school district plans to address the development of effective school library programs to help students develop digital literacy skills, master the knowledge and skills in the challenging academic content standards adopted by the state, and graduate from high school ready for college and careers. Additionally, the legislation will broaden the focus of training, professional development, and recruitment activities under Title II to include school librarians.

Since 1965, more than 60 education and library studies have produced clear evidence that school libraries staffed by qualified librarians have a positive impact on student academic achievement. Knowing how to find and use information are essential skills for college and careers. A good school library, staffed by a trained school librarian, is where students develop and hone these skills.

The SKILLS Act will build on the success of the Improving Literacy through School Libraries programs that was part of the No Child Left Behind Act and is the only Federal initiative solely dedicated to supporting and enhancing our Nation's school libraries. The Department of Education's January 2009 evaluation of the program found that it had been successful in improving the quality of those school libraries receiving the grants. Unfortunately, even in the face of all the evidence of the role school libraries play in boosting student achievement and the efficacy of the program itself, the Administration opted not to use its authority to provide funding for the school library program under the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution.

This was a very short-sighted decision. Since its enactment in 2002, the Improving Literacy through School Libraries program has been making a difference for students across the country.

In Rhode Island, for instance, this program supported the Get READY, Get Ready, Empowered And Determined Youth, project of the Woonsocket school district, which encompassed a comprehensive strategy to improve the reading skills and academic achievement of 6,296 students, in grades K-12, by addressing critical elements of an effective school library program. Grant funds allowed the district to replace outdated library materials, add one to two books per student at each library, extend library hours, and add new computers to connect students to information at other libraries. The funds also increased resources for professional development in technology training for teachers and librarians.

Absent the Federal program, the libraries in many of our high poverty schools will languish with outdated materials and technology. This is a true equity issue, which is why I will continue to fight to sustain our Federal investment in this area and why renewing and strengthening the school library program is of critical importance.

I urge my colleagues to join in cosponsoring the Strengthening Kids' Interest in Learning and Libraries Act.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Layoff Prevention Act, legislation to strengthen and expand work sharing programs to keep Americans on the job and provide employers with a practical alternative to layoffs that is good for business.

While the U.S. has experienced 15 consecutive months of private- sector job creation, too many Americans, nearly 14 million, remain out of work. Like everyone in my State, I am fully focused on finding ways to create jobs. As we work to stabilize employment, our efforts should also be aimed at preventing the loss of jobs in the first place.

This is where work sharing programs make a real difference. If you are a business owner faced with the prospect of having to let go some percentage of your highly-skilled workforce because of a rough patch, work sharing allows you to keep your workers on the job with reduced hours until you can bring them back on full time when business rebounds. In this way, a business does not lose out on the considerable expense and time it has put in to hire and train these workers. This initiative helps workers by lessening the impact of those reduced hours on workers and their families because workers receive a proportionate share of unemployment benefits.

Work sharing has proven to be effective not only in my State of Rhode Island, but in the more than 20 States and the District of Columbia that have adopted it across the Nation. At the height of the recession in 2009, there was a significant jump in employer participation, demonstrating the program's value to small, medium, and large businesses. Indeed, according to the Department of Labor, work sharing programs saved approximately 165,000 jobs in 2009, nearly triple the number the year prior. As the overall economy improved in 2010, the system continued to be a valuable tool, saving 100,000 jobs. But these numbers could be much larger if more States adopted work sharing.

Although work sharing has played an increased role in preventing layoffs, it remains underutilized. Some States are not actively promoting its use; while in many other States it is simply not available.

Despite these limitations, the current economic circumstances have shined a bright light on the value of job sharing and these initiatives have been front and center as States are increasingly turning to them to prevent job losses. A growing number of States with Republican and Democratic Governors have taken action. In just the past few weeks, Maine and Pennsylvania have enacted laws to create work sharing systems, following Colorado, Oklahoma, and New Hampshire last year. The President has also recognized the potential of work sharing to stave off further job losses by including in his fiscal year 2012 budget proposal that expanded on legislation I introduced last Congress.

The bill I am introducing today along with Senators Harkin, Murray, Schumer, Sherrod Brown, Whitehouse, Leahy, Casey, and Blumenthal builds on this momentum and encourages States with existing lay off prevention systems to utilize them more frequently and incentivizes States without work sharing to create them. It strengthens the legislation that I authored last Congress by including changes suggested by the business community, States, economists, and other stakeholders. As in past versions, it provides States that have approved programs with temporary Federal financing for 100 percent of work sharing benefits paid to workers, limited to 26 weeks worth of benefits spread out over the course of a year. This financing is available for three years.

While the bill is designed to incentivize States to enact permanent laws to create work sharing, the bill also includes provisions to allow States to get work sharing up and running more quickly. Specifically, a State can reach an agreement with the Department of Labor to create a temporary program under which they would receive 50 percent Federal financing. This financing incentive would be available for 2 years, and such States would be eligible for a third year of 100 percent federal funding if they pass a permanent law.

In addition, the bill provides flexible grants to State labor agencies at a time when they are doing more with less. States that enact work sharing programs are eligible for grants to improve implementation and administration, and there are also grants for promotion and enrollment. These resources will play a critical role in ensuring that States are efficiently able to inform employers of its benefits, and encourage greater use of work sharing to stave off layoffs. Moreover, as work sharing programs take hold, States will see their unemployment insurance systems less burdened as fewer individuals will need to avail themselves of full unemployment benefits.

Simply put, this legislation will help more workers, businesses, and communities stay afloat, while the country works its way through these tough economic times. Moreover, the bill lays a needed foundation to protect businesses and workers from any future recession. It is a win- win for all.

First, work sharing helps speed economic recovery. Economist Mark Zandi estimates that temporary financing of work share offers a very high ``bang for the buck'' of $1.69. That is, every $1 devoted to finance State work share programs results in $1.69 in real GDP.

Second, work sharing allows businesses to retain skilled workers, temporarily cut costs, and maintain employee morale.

Third, it keeps people working while receiving a share of unemployment benefits to make up for lost wages and retaining health insurance and retirement benefits. This means workers can continue to pay their mortgages and bills, provide for their families, and support businesses in their local communities.

Keeping workers attached to the workforce is a key element of ensuring economic growth.

This legislation does not reinvent the wheel, it is not a mandate on employers or States, and it is not telling anyone what they must do.

Instead, it takes a proven jobs-saving initiative, that is increasingly being used by States, and strengthens and expands it. It gives more employers in more States the opportunity to take advantage of its benefits.

I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this important legislation. It is my hope that we can proceed in a bipartisan manner as has been accomplished in the more than 20 States where work sharing has been adopted and take swift action to pass this legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce with my colleagues Senators Cochran, Murray, Rockefeller, and Whitehouse, the Strengthening Kids' Interest in Learning and Libraries Act bill.

Our bipartisan legislation will reauthorize and strengthen the school library program of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The key improvements to the program include ensuring that elementary, middle, and high school students are served; expanding professional development to include digital literacy instruction and reading and writing instruction across all grade levels; focusing on coordination and shared planning time between teachers and librarians; awarding grants for a period of three years; and ensuring that books and materials are appropriate for and gain the interest of students with special learning needs, including English learners.

The SKILLS Act will also strengthen Title I by asking state and school district plans to address the development of effective school library programs to help students develop digital literacy skills, master the knowledge and skills in the challenging academic content standards adopted by the state, and graduate from high school ready for college and careers. Additionally, the legislation will broaden the focus of training, professional development, and recruitment activities under Title II to include school librarians.

Since 1965, more than 60 education and library studies have produced clear evidence that school libraries staffed by qualified librarians have a positive impact on student academic achievement. Knowing how to find and use information are essential skills for college and careers. A good school library, staffed by a trained school librarian, is where students develop and hone these skills.

The SKILLS Act will build on the success of the Improving Literacy through School Libraries programs that was part of the No Child Left Behind Act and is the only Federal initiative solely dedicated to supporting and enhancing our Nation's school libraries. The Department of Education's January 2009 evaluation of the program found that it had been successful in improving the quality of those school libraries receiving the grants. Unfortunately, even in the face of all the evidence of the role school libraries play in boosting student achievement and the efficacy of the program itself, the Administration opted not to use its authority to provide funding for the school library program under the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution.

This was a very short-sighted decision. Since its enactment in 2002, the Improving Literacy through School Libraries program has been making a difference for students across the country.

In Rhode Island, for instance, this program supported the Get READY, Get Ready, Empowered And Determined Youth, project of the Woonsocket school district, which encompassed a comprehensive strategy to improve the reading skills and academic achievement of 6,296 students, in grades K-12, by addressing critical elements of an effective school library program. Grant funds allowed the district to replace outdated library materials, add one to two books per student at each library, extend library hours, and add new computers to connect students to information at other libraries. The funds also increased resources for professional development in technology training for teachers and librarians.

Absent the Federal program, the libraries in many of our high poverty schools will languish with outdated materials and technology. This is a true equity issue, which is why I will continue to fight to sustain our Federal investment in this area and why renewing and strengthening the school library program is of critical importance.

I urge my colleagues to join in cosponsoring the Strengthening Kids' Interest in Learning and Libraries Act.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, the bills from a decade of ineffective tax cuts and unpaid wars and a recession fueled by lax regulation have come due. I did not support the policies that generated these bills, but pretending these bills do not have to be paid is not an option. Indeed, playing chicken, literally, with the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government is a recipe for disaster. If the U.S. defaults on its debt, every single expert tells us, it will have a huge and immediate impact on the lives of every American all across this country, from the poorest to the most well off. And particularly for those who are struggling, it will be devastating at a time when they can least afford it. Not only could it cause a stoppage of Social Security and veterans' benefits checks, but, more systemically, it would undermine our Nation's opportunity to build a more lasting and more prosperous recovery.

We have seen some progress, but it is not enough. This step, if we default, would seriously undermine our ability to function as an economy and would seriously, perhaps decisively affect our ability to mount and continue to mount a reasonably recovery. We are still recovering from the worst depression since the 1930s. Much of it is based on the policies I mentioned previously: two unfunded wars, the expansion of an

entitlement program that was unpaid for, deep tax cuts that were unpaid for--all of it put on the tab, and the tab is coming due. But now to suggest that we walk away from our obligation to provide at least the legal means to pay our debt is irresponsible.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to talk about taking a scalpel to wasteful spending and about the primacy of severely curtailing investments in our society. They continue to talk about an economic philosophy that I think has been disproven by the last several years, particularly from 2000, when President Bush and the Republican Congress inherited a projected multitrillion-dollar surplus and turned it into a huge deficit under the premise that these types of cuts in taxes, these types of policies would stimulate jobs.

In fact, there has been talk that we are now focusing on cutting spending on Medicare and Medicaid, which is so central to all Americans. It is difficult also to imagine that they are asking for these cuts at a time when so many families throughout this country are struggling--struggling to stay in their homes, struggling simply to pay their bills each week, struggling to ensure their children can continue on with their education. All of this needs a government that supports these Americans, not reneging on commitments we have made, particularly commitments we have made financially to essentially pay for the obligations that have been run up, particularly beginning in 2000 and continuing through the Bush administration.

We all understand we have to reach a principled compromise, but in that compromise, as so many of my colleagues have suggested, an exclusive focus on cutting expenditures will not get us there, I think, simply based on the arithmetic, but more than that, it will impose huge burdens on families who are struggling, and it will continue to reward the most prosperous in this Nation. I do not think that is the right way to do it or the fair way to do it.

The priorities I have heard expressed on the other side are to continue to talk about very deep tax cuts, at a time when we have the lowest revenues we have had in decades, and then talk about cutting expenditures--education, health care, and, indeed, under their proposed budget, Medicare and Medicaid, which is so central to so many people.

We know we have to focus on not just expenditures but also revenue, and we also have to begin the very difficult and arduous task of entitlement reform. We began that in the last Congress. In fact, I think it is ironic, as I recall the debate on the affordable care act, that most of the amendments my colleagues on the other side were offering were to send back to committee proposed changes in Medicare that would have reduced costs and, I would argue, would actually have improved quality. That was their focus. Now their focus has suddenly shifted to how we must cut Medicare and Medicaid.

What we have to do is provide the same kind of reasonable, balanced approach that took place in the 1990s. Again, without any Republican support in 1993 and 1994 but with a Democratic President and Democratic votes, we were able to begin to balance the budget. It was a multiyear process. It required difficult choices. But we have to continue to pursue that path of a balanced, reasonable response to this problem.

As I said before, one of the issues that is so central to this country is not directly related just to the issue of the deficit, it is also related to jobs. They are obviously closely interrelated. The more jobs we have, the more people who are participating in the economy, the better our fiscal position is in Washington.

Sadly, what we saw, particularly at the tail end of the Bush administration, was a collapse in our jobs market. The U.S. economy lost 8.7 million private sector jobs in 2008 and 2009. We experienced-- under the Bush administration principally--25 consecutive months of job losses. That, again, has contributed to these huge deficits. If people do not work, they do not contribute to the taxes. If people do not work, they are likely to get unemployment benefits. People who lose part of their wages may qualify for other programs.

Since the President has come to office, we have seen a rebound. We have not seen the full, robust recovery we need, but we have seen a rebound. We gained 2.081 million jobs, a little over 2 million jobs in 2010 and 2011. We have experienced 15 consecutive months of private sector job creation--not enough, but we have reversed the collapse and 25 months of job decline by creating jobs and continuing on a sustained basis as a result of difficult decisions that were made by President Obama and the Democratic Congress in the Recovery Act.

My home State of Rhode Island has been particularly hard hit by the policies we saw in the first part of this decade. We have the third highest unemployment rate at 10.9 percent. We have seen a significant foreclosure problem. We have seen very crippling impacts on the working families of Rhode Island.

Now we hear that the only solution we have and the best way to correct jobs is to continue to do what was done under the Bush administration: Let's just cut taxes, particularly for the wealthiest Americans. The evidence suggests that does not produce the kinds of jobs--not even the kinds of jobs we have seen in the last 15 months. The economy did not add a single new job during the 3 years under the Bush tax cuts. The economy had 132 million jobs in June 2001 when we passed--against my opposition--the Bush tax cuts. That was the month it was first signed into law. Three years later, in June 2004, there were just 131.4 million jobs. We actually lost some jobs.

If you take a step back and look at the course of the entire Bush Presidency, from January 2001 through January 2009, there was a decline in the number of private sector jobs of approximately 650,000. That is over the course of the whole administration. In fact, the only net job creation that occurred was in the public sector. Nearly 1.75 million government jobs were created over the course of the Bush Presidency.

Revenue as a percentage of our economy, as a percentage of GDP, was 14.9 percent in 2010. It is the lowest level since 1950 when it dropped to 14.4 percent. By comparison, government revenue was averaging about 18 percent over the previous 30 years. So you see, under the Bush policies, which essentially my colleagues want to emulate, reconstitute, no job growth and a significant decline in revenue.

At a time when revenue as a percentage of GDP is the lowest it has been in 60 years, now we are talking about further tax cuts in the Republican budget, but we are certainly talking--my colleagues are talking about maintaining the current taxes. Frankly, there are so many tax expenditures that my colleagues talked about that are not worthy of retention, that are loopholes that we can, in fact, eliminate, and we should. Some examples: tax break for people who breed alpacas; deductions for film and TV production; favorable tax depreciation for racehorse owners, horse breeders tax credit; an exemption for wooden practice arrows used by children; NASCAR motorsport racing facility tax credit; withholding tax breaks on horse and dog track winnings. The list can go on and on.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

I thank the Senator from Illinois for his deference.

We understand we have to make tough choices. They have to include expenditure cuts. We have already started with the continuing resolution of the last year where we reduced spending significantly. But we have to have revenue on the table. As Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke said:

[ . . . ] a sharp fiscal consolidation focused on the very

near term could be self-defeating if it were to undercut the

still-fragile economy.

We need to create jobs. We need to balance deficit reduction with job creation. We need to put everything on the table, and we need to recognize that the consequences of default on our debt will be staggering, felt by every American. One figure that continues to be impressed upon me is the fact that for every 1 percent increase in the interest rate over the 10-year period, we increase our deficit by over $1 trillion.

I think the first response to a default would be a rise in the interest rates we have to pay for our debt.

I would urge progress on the efforts to have a comprehensive solution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an exceptional officer in the U.S. Army. LTG Robert E. Durbin will retire on August 1 after more than 36 years of distinguished service to the Army and the Nation.

Throughout his career, General Durbin has personified the Army values of duty, integrity, and selfless service across the many missions to which he has contributed.

General Durbin, a resident of Pennsylvania, graduated from the U.S. Military Academy in 1975 and then went on to receive a master's degree in mechanical engineering from Pennsylvania State University.

He has served in a variety of command and staff assignments, leading men and women during times of peace and war. Over the course of almost four decades of service, he has commanded at the platoon, company, battalion, and brigade levels.

Furthermore, he served as the commanding general of the Combined Security Transition Command--Afghanistan, the command that plays such a critical role in training the Afghan National Security Forces. He subsequently became the commanding general of the 1st Infantry Division and Fort Riley.

General Durbin has spent the last 3 years serving as the director of the Army's Office of Business Transformation, where he was responsible for leading the Army's efforts to operate more cost-consciously while still providing the best trained and equipped force. During one of the most challenging economic periods in our history, General Durbin has helped foster and institutionalize better business practices among our Army's senior leaders. His personal efforts were instrumental in leading the Army through significant changes in the way it grows, resets, modernizes, and transforms. He made these processes more relevant to current operational requirements and significantly increased the Army's capability to support combatant commanders.

In all of his assignments, General Durbin has provided outstanding leadership, integrity, and sound advice on numerous issues of importance to the Army and our nation.

I would like to thank General Durbin, his wife Diana, and his entire family for their commitment, sacrifices, and service to our nation. Congratulations and best wishes.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the nomination of Leon Panetta as the next Secretary of Defense. Director Panetta comes to this job at an extraordinarily challenging time for the Department of Defense and for our Nation. Among the many issues he will confront, Mr. Panetta will oversee the completion of our direct military operations in Iraq, the beginning of the transition of our forces out of Afghanistan, the enhancement of our cyber defenses, and the reduction of our defense budget.

I have known Leon Panetta for many years, and I know he is particularly well suited to address all of these challenges. He is a man of great intellect, of great decency, and great determination.

At the end of this year, for example, in compliance with the Status of Forces Agreement, we will complete the withdrawal of our forces from Iraq and hand over primary responsibility for our ongoing relationship with Iraq to the Department of State. It remains to be seen whether the Iraqi Government will ask us to extend our military presence past December 31. But for now, we are thoroughly and determinately preparing our troops to leave. Having served as a member of the Iraq Study Group, Mr. Panetta certainly understands the importance of this transition and will carry it out.

As the next Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta will also continue to focus our efforts on fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are facing a critical turning point in our operations. This week, we expect President Obama to announce his plan to begin reducing our force levels in Afghanistan this summer, a commitment he made in his speech at West Point in 2009.

Along with the reduction in forces we must sustain the security gains that we have accomplished during the past year and further build the capacity of the Afghan forces so they are able to take full responsibility for their own security. Mr. Panetta understands how important it is for all of our agencies to work together in this effort and all security missions; that using military force may be our primary weapon of securing areas but enduring success comes from coordination among the intelligence and law enforcement communities, from effective diplomacy, and from assistance programs administered by the Department of State and the USAID.

The conditions on the ground in Afghanistan are directly related to our ability to successfully attack the terrorist networks that are operating along the border in Pakistan. In his current position as Director of the CIA, Mr. Panetta has reinvigorated these efforts, most notably with the successful raid on Osama bin Laden. Indeed, I believe when history looks back, outside of the critical and ultimate decision by the President of the United States, one of the most important roles played in this effort to prepare the way for those courageous SEALs was the steady leadership of Leon Panetta at the Central Intelligence Agency. He understands the complexities of our relationship with Pakistan and, indeed, throughout the world. This expertise will be critical as we move forward, and critical for our next Secretary of Defense.

He will also lead the Department of Defense in preparing for the emerging threats to our national security, such as attacks to our cyber infrastructure. Indeed, every branch of government is working to define the roles various organizations will play in protecting people, infrastructure, and information within cyberspace.

During his confirmation hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee, I discussed with Director Panetta the strategy the Department of Defense would employ in confronting the potential of a cyber attack against the United States. He responded in no uncertain terms. His words:

I have often said that there is a strong likelihood that

the next Pearl Harbor that we confront could very well be a

cyberattack that cripples our power system, our grid, our

security systems, our financial systems, our governmental

systems. This is a real possibility in today's world. And as

a result, I think we have to aggressively be able to counter

that.

Indeed, Mr. Panetta understands the future as well as the present, and he will bring his experience as well as his vision to bear on the emerging challenges that face the United States.

Perhaps most challenging of all, Leon Panetta will lead the Department at a time of great fiscal constraints. As our Nation continues to find a path forward to rebound from the economic challenges of the last few years, there is an ever-growing pressure to reduce the size of the defense budget, which has nearly doubled over the past 10 years. But we must be careful to do so in a way that removes unsustainable costs without losing vital capability.

As a result of the high operational tempo and the duration of multiple overseas operations, all of our services are facing serious reset and recapitalization needs. Serious decisions will have to be made to ensure that we have the right systems in place to meet the threats we face, all at a price level that we can afford.

Having served as the House Budget Committee chairman, and as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, there is no one who has more knowledge, more experience, more sense of the details than Leon Panetta, and I believe he is the most well qualified individual to tackle the huge budgetary issues that are facing the Department of Defense.

Leon will have an extraordinary role to play, particularly in the wake of the extraordinary service of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. I can't think of anyone I respect or admire more. I can't think of anyone who has served this country with more distinction,

who has served with more selfless dedication to the Nation, and fundamentally who has made his decisions knowing full well that at the end of the day young Americans in the uniform of the United States will carry out his orders.

Bob Gates has done a superb job. But I have every confidence that Leon Panetta will continue to carry on, will continue to meet those standards, will continue to lead the Department of Defense with distinction, with dedication and great loyalty, just as Secretary Gates has done, and ultimately we will know that at the end of all the decisions emanating from the Pentagon there is a young American willing and able and ready to serve, to support this Nation and defend it.

With that, I rise to express my great support for Secretary-designee Panetta and wish him well in all of his endeavors and pledge to work with him closely.

I yield the floor.

I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Danielle DeFant, a fellow with my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the 112th Congress.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after I am recognized, Senator Whitehouse be recognized--we are speaking on the same topic--for up to 10 minutes and, at the conclusion of that time, Senator Alexander from Tennessee be recognized.

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today along with my colleague, Senator Whitehouse, to help mark the 350th anniversary of the settlement of Block Island, RI.

Block Island sits 12 miles south of coastal Rhode Island, and for over three centuries has contributed to the economic and ecological vitality of my home State. It has a rich history.

In 1614, the Dutch merchant and explorer Adriaen Block charted the Island, which is named for him.

In 1661 colonists from Massachusetts sailed to Block Island and established a community that would later become the town of New Shoreham.

During the Revolutionary War, Block Islanders warned American soldiers of approaching British ships by lighting fires on Beacon Hill, the island's highest point. And, over the past 200 years, Block Island has constructed two lighthouses that have provided safe passage for countless sailors and travelers.

Today, Block Island is home to over 1,000 permanent residents and welcomes up to 20,000 visitors each day during tourist season.

Block Island has been graced by visits by two sitting Presidents-- President Ulysses S. Grant in 1875 and in 1999 by President William Jefferson Clinton. I was pleased to have guided President Clinton as well as First Lady Hillary Clinton, who is now Secretary of State, around the Mohegan Bluffs and the historic Southeast Lighthouse, which overlooks the Atlantic Ocean, during their visit.

Throughout the years, the local community has worked hard to preserve the Island's natural beauty and landmarks. In the 1980s and early 1990s Captain John R. Lewis, a Block Island resident known to all as Rob, spearheaded a campaign to save the Southeast Lighthouse, which was threatened by an eroding shoreline. With a coalition of friends and local residents, Rob worked to secure nearly $1 million in Federal funding and he persuaded Block Islanders to help raise $270,000 through donations.

I must also applaud the efforts of John Chafee and Claiborne Pell, my predecessors--particularly Senator Chafee--who worked hard to ensure support for the movement of the Southeast Lighthouse. Their efforts, in conjunction with Federal and State leaders, saved this historic landmark, which still stands today.

Over 40 percent of the Island is now preserved land. The Island boasts dramatic bluffs, pristine beaches, and 25 miles of public hiking trails. Over 40 kinds of endangered species call Block Island home and thousands of migratory birds pass through each year making this a truly exceptional place.

Indeed, Block Island was included on the Nature Conservancy's list of ``Last Great Places.'' This honor identifies sites in the Western Hemisphere with significant biodiversity and ecosystems with rare or endangered species.

Block Island is not only unique for its rich history; it also has a beautiful landscape.

Generations of Block Islanders have preserved what the Narragansett Indian tribe called ``God's Little Island.'' As we celebrate the 350th anniversary of Block Island's settlement, it is fitting that we recognize and congratulate Block Islanders for all of their efforts to preserve one of our country's most treasured places.

I yield to Senator Whitehouse.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Montana for yielding and also for bringing this issue before the Senate. I am reluctantly opposing my dear friend but doing so on the principles that are inherent in what we have tried to accomplish in the Dodd-Frank legislation; that is, to provide for transparency in the pricing of financial products. With that as a starting point, I will begin.

One aspect I think we have to consider is not just this specific amendment but the growing attempt to undermine the ability to implement the reforms incorporated in the Dodd-Frank legislation, which are actually critical not just to protecting consumers but also to providing a foundation for an effective financial system in the United States, which is the foundation, I believe, of a growing and thriving economy.

So this debate is not just about interchange fees; it is about comprehensively dealing with the problems we saw manifest themselves in the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009, where market discipline collapsed, where some great institutions failed and some were on the verge of failure. If they had failed, then the ramifications would not be simply restricted to Wall Street; they would have been felt on Main Street, and we would be in a worse financial position than we are today.

But this specific amendment deals with the interchange fees or swipe fees. The first issue I think we have to recognize is these are hidden fees. They are charged in each transaction a consumer makes using a debit card. Every time you swipe the card--which serves as an electronic check--there is a fee. But the consumers do not see this fee. So basically you have a disguised price. If the price is disguised, then the consumer does not have a real indication of the cost. If he does not know the cost, then that affects the rational economic decisions we assume consumers are making every time they make an economic decision.

But at the end of the day, despite the fact that the consumer is unaware of these fees, he or she ends up paying them in higher prices for gas, for milk; in fact, they have been paying these higher prices for the privilege of using a debit card for years and years and years.

Debits cards are used more than checks today, more than credit cards to pay for everyday purchases. These secret fees--in a sense, you might even describe them as hidden taxes on consumers--add up to billions of dollars a month. The Durbin interchange provision of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law sought to make these interchange fees transparent and public for

the very first time. It requires that for transactions involving debit cards issued by banks with assets over $10 billion--the largest banks, not the community banks, not the credit unions but the largest banks-- that these interchange fees set by a card network on behalf of its issuing banks must be reasonable and proportional to the amount it costs the issuer to conduct the transaction.

This is the law of the land. The Federal Reserve was given the responsibility of implementing the law through regulations, and they are on the verge of publishing those regulations.

Senator Durbin proposed this provision because businesses such as, in my home State of Rhode Island, Cumberland Farms--the old convenience store chain that I grew up with and the quintessential small business, a family-owned business--pays almost as much in these hidden fees as it earns each year in profits. These fees roughly equal their profit.

Interchange fees are Cumberland Farms' second largest expense. It is not the milk. It is not the gasoline. It is not a lot of things. It is their second largest expense. For example, despite the fact that the total number of gallons of gasoline they have sold has remained flat, the interchange fees have increased 270 percent, from $13 million in 2003 to a projected $48 million this year. Again, the number of gallons of gasoline they have sold has remained flat, but their interchange fees have gone up almost 270 percent.

Cumberland Farms' CEO calls this increase a ``runaway train.'' When gasoline was $2 per gallon, interchange fees were about 3 cents per gallon. Now that gas prices are about $4 per gallon, interchange fees have increased to 5 cents a gallon. So for the same 15-gallon fill-up, the hidden fees increased 63 percent. So the motorists, the local Rhode Islanders filling up at the local corner gas station, are paying for greater interchange fees, on top of the increase in the price of gasoline.

The actual debit card services have not changed. But because the price of gas increased, the fees almost doubled. That is a pretty good deal for Visa and MasterCard and the banks. Unfortunately, as these fees continue to increase, they increase gas prices, they prevent investment, and they preclude new hiring. Indeed, the convenience store industry reports that, overall, it pays more in these fees than it is earning in profits. That is overall across the board and across the country.

There is another example, a very local company, a very small business: Chocolate Delicacy in East Greenwich, RI. It pays a swipe fee on every piece of chocolate sold when paid by a debit or gift card, which amounts to 60 percent of their purchases. The owner, Marie Schaller, told me she feels like she has no choice but to pay the fee. ``If I don't, I would lose over half of my sales.'' The growing swipe fees have meant a cutback in hiring for Marie.

At the Beehive Cafe, located in Bristol, RI, a cup of coffee costs $1.75. The swipe fee is 15 cents. Because card fees are hidden and there is no ability to negotiate them, owner Jennifer Cavallaro said:

Visa and MasterCard have inserted themselves into every

single transaction that takes place--equating to a tax on

commerce. This is not free enterprise; the small business

person is trapped.

When consumers pay for some drinks with debit cards, 7-11 owners in Rhode Island told me they lose money on every transaction. So why don't supermarkets, drug stores, and other merchants negotiate to pay less? Well, they can't. The fees are set by Visa and MasterCard and the card networks. They have no bargaining power.

Most merchants in America are left with no choice but to accept the cards. They cannot play if they do not pay. In July 2010, we passed an interchange provision so the Federal Reserve could study the fees and decide whether they are reasonable. In fact, the Federal Reserve found that they were not reasonable nor proportional.

The Federal Reserve found that the average swipe fee was 44 cents for every purchase, but the processing costs were less than about 12 cents per purchase, giving them a 30-percent margin on their actual cost.

In December of last year, the Federal Reserve proposed rules to limit the fee to reasonable rates. The Federal Reserve's top economists are reviewing and considering over 11,000 comments on their current reasonable fee proposal.

Chairman Bernanke has said they are committed to issuing a final rule by July 21 of this year. I believe they should be given the chance to study all the comments and complete the rule. Only by letting them do their work instead of disrupting it are we going to be able to see if the new reasonable fee structure can open up this system and make these fees more reasonable and transparent.

Banks and card issuers that receive the fees have been vocal about their objections, preferring to keep the fees hidden and ever rising beyond the current 44 cents. With such a large profit margin in this line of business most of us can understand why. MasterCard said in its Annual Report to Shareholders:

We are devoting substantial management and financial

resources to the defense of interchange fees.

Visa told its shareholders that the rules ``may give retailers greater ability to route debit transactions onto competitive networks which can reduce the processing fees we currently earn.''

So the credit card companies are very much aware that there could be a better competitive environment for merchants and consumers if this legislation goes through. That is what they told their shareholders.

Small banks, under $10 billion in assets, are exempt from the rules. A survey conducted by the American Banker found that an overwhelming majority believe the law actually helps small banks. Small banks will have a competitive advantage since their fees are not limited by the rule.

The United States is not alone in closely examining these fees. The European Union, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Spain, South Africa, and Switzerland already regulate swipe fees. In addition to the ever-increasing swipe fees merchants are forced to pay for, merchants also bear the brunt of the cost of fraud, contrary to some of the assertions the industry has made.

It is my understanding that after fraud claims, networks typically raise interchange fees of the company that has been subject to the fraud and often engage in litigation against merchants to recoup fraud losses. Of course, all of these costs--the merchant's costs and, I think, also the interchange costs--are passed on to consumers.

Here are some examples: When criminals installed scanners to obtain customer account information at Michael's, a craft store, it was only the latest theft of such consumer data. Community banks were quick to respond and immediately issued new cards and returned stolen money. However, despite paying millions in interchange fees in the recent past, Michael's may have to reimburse Visa and MasterCard and the banks for these replacement costs.

In another example, in December 2006, T.J.Maxx discovered that computer hackers had broken into their computer network and had stolen customer payment card data. In March of last year, a Federal judge sentenced one of the computer hackers responsible to 20 years in Federal prison.

Since 2006, T.J.Maxx has spent about $170 million in costs related to this incident, including nearly $65 million to Visa and MasterCard to compensate banks for the cost of the fraud.

This, of course, is in addition to continuing to pay their interchange fees. The same hacker who hacked T.J.Maxx also hacked Heartland Payment Systems. That attack cost Heartland over $140 million, the majority of which was paid to Visa and MasterCard and other banks to compensate for the cost of the fraud. Heartland Payment Systems had to pay the banks and Visa and MasterCard for the computer fraud committed.

So the consumer pays for the data breaches, the consumer pays for the debit card fraud, and the consumer pays more and more for interchange fees. I think any further delay in the rules to require reasonable swipe fees only harms small businesses and, in the end, the consumers.

The amendment before us provides for at least a 12-month delay in the rule, in addition to a 6-month study, and effectively a completely new version of the proposed rule. I think it is unreasonable. There is no reason for delay. The Federal Reserve has what

Chairman Bernanke characterized as, in his words, plenty of information from over 11,000 comments to the Federal Reserve's December 2010 rule proposal.

In addition, the Federal Reserve has done an enormous amount of surveying of the industry, again in the words of Chairman Bernanke. I think the proposal before us provides the banks another way to avoid transparency in their operations.

The Federal Reserve should be allowed to finish their rules to establish a reasonable fee for debit card services. Then we can work with the banking regulators to make sure their rules do in fact work, and do in fact provide for a more transparent, competitive marketplace to the benefit of merchants and consumers.

Our market system only works well if merchants and consumers have the information they need to make informed choices, and that was what was at the heart of this provision in the Dodd-Frank Act. I believe that is what is at the heart of the Dodd-Frank proposal overall, which is to provide better information, more transparency, whether it is credit cards or debit cards or complicated derivatives, because armed with better information individual consumers and individual merchants can make better choices about economic decisions that will accrue to the benefit of all of us.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Robert Peak, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the 112th Congress.

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

Madam President, we have been engaged in a very important debate on our budget over the last few days, and this debate will continue over the next several weeks, indeed, for probably several months. It is not a new debate. Like past debates, at the heart of it are important programs to middle-income Americans, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. In some quarters, they are under attack. This does not have to be the case.

In the 1990s, Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate, with a Democratic President, were able to deal with this issue of deficits while preserving these programs and strengthening, indeed, in many cases, these programs. We were able to also provide the kind of economic growth that generated job creation, not just increased GDP or increased profits on Wall Street, but jobs on Main Street.

Much of these efforts were, frankly, undone, beginning in 2000 with tax cuts that did not, as advertised, produce the kind of private employment growth that was necessary for our economy, that shifted the burden to middle-income taxpayers, while giving the wealthiest Americans extraordinary relief and unfunded entitlement programs, such as Medicare Part D and two major conflicts, none of which were paid for.

So now we, once again, face a situation where we have a significant deficit, and we need to address it. President Obama has begun that process with the same commitment to maintaining Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, not without reforms and strengthening, but making sure that middle-income Americans and all Americans can have access to these vital programs.

We have taken significant steps in the long run to reform our health care system with the Affordable Care Act.

We hope that act is implemented efficiently and effectively so we can begin to realize long-term savings to bend the proverbial cost curve of our health programs, not just our Federal health care programs but our health care costs across the board that are borne by private insurers as well as private programs.

In fact, ironically, it seems to me that one of the major accelerators of the Medicare Program is the fact that so many Americans--about 40 million--do not have access to consistent quality health care now. Yet, when they turn 65, by right they have access to a panoply of services. I have had discussions with doctors, and they will tell me that they say several times a day to their new Medicare patients: I wish I saw you 10 years ago because I would not have to apply the expensive diagnostic and treatment. I could have done something much easier, much less costly if you had coverage and access.

So that is one of the long-term efforts we have underway, but we have to do a lot more to go ahead and deal with the issues before us.

We have seen Republican budget proposals, but frankly I do not think they strengthen the middle class here in the United States, nor do they provide the kind of sensible investment that will lead to job creation and provide the opportunities that are necessary for succeeding generations in America. I think they are more dedicated to an ideological commitment to simply reduce taxes, and that is something that has to be tested and should be tested in the history of the last several years. That was the same argument that was made in 2001, that such tax cuts would generate huge growth in private employment, unleash huge economic forces here in the United States, and frankly, over the last 10 years, that has not been the case.

So I think we have to be sensible. I think we have to address the tax reforms and tax reductions to middle-income Americans, not continue to favor the richest Americans, when it comes to tax proposals. So much of what the Republican budget seems to do is continue what they started in 2001--huge relief for the wealthiest Americans. But it is increasingly putting the burden on Middle America. In fact, it has been estimated that under the Republican budget, individuals making over $1 million would receive an average tax cut of $125,000 a year. That is a huge cut relative to whatever a working, middle-income American might receive.

One of the other aspects of this budget is the impact it would have on Medicare. Medicare is central to every family in the country. In fact, look around at not just someone who is earning a wage hour by hour, but look at the small businessperson, a man or a woman. Their retirement plan rests on the assumption that they will have access to Medicare. The Republican's proposal, as I understand it, essentially

ends that for individuals who are about 55 years old or younger. Well, in the next 10-plus years or so, they are going to have to come up with a lot of money to pay for the Medicare they assumed they would receive automatically when they retire at 65. That is not just the wage earner, the hourly worker who goes in there; that is the small businessperson whose postretirement plan rests fundamentally on Medicare and them being able to buy a supplemental health care plan to that.

So these are fundamental and, in fact, earth-shattering proposals, in my view.

Currently, seniors on traditional Medicare pay approximately $1,700 in annual premiums. They are charged a limited amount for every hospital stay, have a reasonable deductible for every major procedure and treatment, and pay copays for services and prescription drugs. They are even able to buy, as I alluded to, these Medigap plans so they can supplement what Medicare provides with additional resources, and these supplemental plans are very affordable. On average, Medicare then spends $11,762 on every senior, and that is just an average.

But this would all change, and it would inject a huge amount of uncertainty if the budget that is proposed by Republicans, that is still being debated by the Republicans, that is still being supported in many cases by Republicans is in any way enacted.

In the year 2022, under the proposal, if the Republican budget were enacted, every senior who becomes eligible for what we now call Medicare would be given $8,000 to address all their health care needs and then sent to the marketplace to buy health care private insurance.

Now, I guess I have reached a point in my life where I can reflect and remember that as a youngster in the 1950s, there was, in practically every one of my friends' homes, a grandparent who was there because they didn't have access to Medicare or Medicaid.

They were in a hospital bed in the living room or in some other room. They were being cared for by typically the mother, who was also trying to care for youngsters such as myself and my contemporaries. The reason was, regardless of how much money you have, at some point, insurance companies will not sell you insurance. You are old. You had health experiences prior to that. You are a bad risk, and they are not in the business of insuring bad risks. That was, as much as anything, the genesis of Medicare--the recognition that the private health care market would not, regardless of the ability to pay, provide adequate coverage. And I think we have forgotten that.

When the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan organization, looked at the proposal, they essentially concluded that with this $8,000 transfer to a senior in lieu of traditional Medicare, the senior would be on the hook for an additional $12,500 in health care costs. In fact, it would likely result in some seniors not even getting health care insurance at all, not being able to afford it or at some point, particularly as they aged, getting to the point where no one would write them health care insurance because of the obvious health risks they were.

So this is a plan that I don't think comports with the reality of Americans who have already planned to have access to Medicare and also the reality that what is proposed--an $8,000 transfer payment to an insurance company--would be inadequate to provide the kind of minimum coverage we should be providing to our seniors.

We have had examples before where particular Republicans would propose that they had a new, novel way to provide private health care insurance in lieu of traditional Medicare. When Medicare Advantage was established in 2003, seniors had the option of enrolling in private health insurance plans that were argued by their advocates as being cost-effective, as putting pressure on the public health care plan known as Medicaid. Madam President, 60,000 seniors in my State of Rhode Island enrolled. Private Medicare Advantage plans sell consumers on additional benefits and smaller copays. They went out--very selectively, I suspect--recruiting seniors in a way that they hoped attracted the healthiest seniors, not the sickest seniors, to lower their costs. However, in reality, most of these plans tended to cost more than traditional Medicare as the smaller copays were largely offset by higher monthly premiums.

So there are those who are still seriously proposing this Republican approach to Medicare. I think it will be a mistake. I think it would reduce access to health care coverage for seniors. I do not think the private market will jump up with $8,000. I do not think you will see that Congresses in the future will escalate the cost of these vouchers or transfers to private insurance companies in any way that would be commensurate to the real cost seniors would face.

As a result, I think this proposal will do serious harm to health care and particularly to the middle-income American who, regardless of whether they are running a small business or working for an hourly wage, will now face the prospect of the great uncertainty, the great unknown of no adequate health care coverage when they reach 65. We will go back in time to the period of my youth where, quite frankly, seniors did not have the kind of health care coverage they have today and I believe the kind of health care coverage they deserve.

With respect to Medicaid, there are also proposals here and the thought that Medicaid is just a program for children and poor Americans. But, frankly, if you look at the statistics, there are 26,000 seniors in my State who are on Medicaid, principally because of nursing home care. And we have to ask ourselves, if these plans to provide block grants to States are enacted under the Republican proposal, whether those seniors still can maintain themselves in these nursing facilities, whether the costs will be so great on the States that they will be unable to keep up the level of effort, the level of support they are today.

What seems to be inherent in all of those proposals is not savings but shifting costs, not reforming the system to be more efficient and more effective but simply shifting the cost onto seniors, shifting the cost onto particularly middle-income Americans.

So, I am pleased that we did not accept these Republican budget proposals, which are the wrong way to address our budget issues.

I yield the floor.