Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Commitee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in open session on Thursday, November 15, 2012, at 9:45 a.m. in room SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Pharmacy Compounding: Implications of the 2012 Meningitis Outbreak.''

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Elizabeth Jungman of the committee staff on (202) 224-6859.

Mr. President, our Nation faces an absolutely fundamental choice in this year's election: Are we going to rescue, restore, and rebuild the middle class or are we going to continue to shift even more wealth and advantages to those at the top at the expense of the middle class?

As I have done every day we have been in session here, I want to point out to the American people what the blueprint is for this country under the Romney-Ryan budget. That is their budget. A budget is a blueprint of where you want to go, what you want to do, how you want to build something--how you want to build the future of our country. That is the Ryan budget. So I want to take a look again at the Ryan budget and what it does for the future of this country.

First of all, the very centerpiece of the Ryan budget is whopping new tax cuts, mostly for those at the top, the richest 2 percent. Those making $1 million or more a year would receive $265,000 a year in new tax cuts on top of the $129,000 they would get from extending the old Bush tax cuts. That means now if you are in the top 2 percent and you are making over $1 million a year, you get $394,000 in new tax cuts.

We keep hearing about Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan talking about entitlements. We have got to cut back on entitlements. Don't we? What about this? That is what they always talk about. They are talking about people who are lower income, who rely upon certain things such as nutrition assistance or job training programs, maybe Pell grants for students, for poor kids to go to college--cut back on those. What about this entitlement? This is an entitlement; you are entitled to it: If you make over $1 million a year, you will be entitled to those tax cuts.

We don't hear them cutting back on that entitlement. No. They want to extend it. How do they pay for all these new tax cuts? The total is $4.5 trillion over 10 years. They do not exactly say how, but the Republican budget, that Ryan budget, would offset these tax cuts by making very deep and Draconian cuts in programs that undergird the middle class--everything from education, student loans, grants, law enforcement, clean air, clean water, food safety, medical research, highways, bridges and other infrastructure, all cut in the Ryan budget.

The Ryan budget, as I will explain a little bit more in detail shortly, would end Medicare. We will hear a lot of people saying it will end Medicare as we know it. Well, if we end something as we know it, that means we end it.

The Romney-Ryan budget, since Mr. Romney called it marvelous--the Romney-Ryan budget would end Medicare and make it a voucher care system. That would force seniors to pay nearly

$6,000 more per year out of their pockets for health care in the future.

Last, they offset these tax cuts by raising taxes on the middle class--actually raising taxes on the middle class. Mr. Ryan's budget is to use the deficit crisis as a pretext for dismantling Medicare, Medicaid, cutting education and environmental protection, workplace safety, and all the things I have said. What they do is double down on the theory that if we just give more and more to those at the top, it will trickle down to everybody else. That theory was tried under President George W. Bush, and it did not work out too well.

Today I want to focus on the devastating impact of the Romney-Ryan budget on Medicare and on health care generally. Since he first arrived in Congress, Representative Ryan has consistently pushed a very specific and radical health care program to end Medicare. Under his proposal, seniors would no longer have the guaranteed Medicare benefits they have enjoyed for decades. Instead, they would get a voucher from the Federal Government. They can then go out and buy individual private insurance or Medicare.

Again, they say: You can buy Medicare. You can stay in Medicare if you want or you can buy private insurance. Let's take a look at that. In 10 years the Ryan plan would eliminate Medicare, shift to vouchers, but the vouchers would not be enough to cover the health care costs so seniors' out-of-pocket costs would go up.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has projected that the Ryan proposal could increase annual out-of-pocket costs for seniors by more than $1,200 in 2030, almost $6,000 in 2050. If we total all these years, if we add one year after the other that seniors would have to pay, seniors retiring in 2023, over their lifetime, would be paying almost $60,000 more in total. For seniors retiring in 2030 it would be about $125,000. When we get up to 2050, a senior retiring then would be spending about $330,000 over their retirement years just for health care. That is what voucher care means.

In addition, the Ryan plan would leave the traditional Medicare system in a death spiral. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan, in extolling their budget, say: You know, we will give them a voucher. If you want to, you can go out and buy traditional Medicare or you can buy a private insurance plan.

What does that mean? That means if someone is a very healthy senior they might get a better deal by going out and buying a private insurance plan. So who stays in Medicare? The poorest and the sickest. Then the Medicare costs explode and it becomes unaffordable and we destroy the whole Medicare system. Do not buy that argument of Mr. Ryan, that someone can stay in Medicare if they want. No, it would destroy it.

Make no mistake, the Ryan plan is a radical break with the past. This is not some little transition. This is not some little bit of experimentation or something. No, the Ryan budget is a radical break with what we have had in the past. It turns a successful, reliable comprehensive source of health care that seniors have depended on for decades, paid into over years of hard work--they turn it into an unpredictable, unreliable voucher care system.

Our approach is very different. President Obama has fought to strengthen Medicare, not end it. He believes Medicare is a sacred compact, and he has improved Medicare in the Affordable Care Act or what we now know as ObamaCare.

My friends on the other side of the aisle have been saying ``ObamaCare'' as though it is a pejorative. It has a bad connotation. I use it as a very good connotation because I want to tell you President Obama does care. He cares about the fact that kids can stay on their parents' policy until age 26. He does care that insurance companies can no longer put lifetime caps on real sick people any longer. President Obama does care if someone has a preexisting condition, they cannot be denied affordable health care insurance. So, yes, President Obama does care. That is why I think ObamaCare really does describe it well--Obama cares.

For example, in ObamaCare we eliminate gaps in coverage; that is, the doughnut hole. We close the doughnut hole. We reduce the cost of prescription drugs. According to Medicare's Actuary--not me, the Actuary--the Affordable Care Act extends the program's solvency by 8 years, from 2016 to 2024, by getting rid of wasteful subsidies to insurance companies, getting rid of fraud, waste, and abuse in the system. So our plan for Medicare is simple: Mend it, don't end it. That is just what we do.

The Ryan plan is bad news for those who depend on Medicare for their basic health care needs. It is disastrous for people who depend on the Medicaid Program. The Ryan budget would block-grant Medicaid, put the entire program under the States, and then cut it by $810 billion over the next 10 years. That's right. The Medicaid Program, block-grant it to the States, cut it by $810 billion over the next 10 years.

What does Medicaid do? Seniors, if they pay into the program, have Medicare when they retire. If they become disabled, if they have paid in the requisite amount of money, they can get disability coverage or survivors' benefits. I am talking about Medicaid, health care for low- income Americans and other populations.

The Medicaid Program is something we instituted over half a century ago now to tell all Americans that they are going to be able to have quality health care. Do you remember that debate? I remember watching one of the debates that the Republicans were having in their Presidential series. The question was asked: You know we take care of sick people in our country. Where do they go? They can go to the emergency room. It costs a lot more money. But the question was asked-- something about, do you just deny that? A lot of people would say just let them die, leave them out on the street.

Is that the kind of country we want to be? If we are sick and we do not have the wherewithal we cannot get health care? We moved beyond that. We have moved beyond that as a society.

The other population is Americans with disabilities. Almost one in every two Americans, almost 50 percent of Americans with disabilities depend on Medicaid for access to health services and support that span everything from hospital to home care. Services from the Medicaid Program allow our citizens with disabilities to live with dignity and with purpose in their homes and in their communities. Nearly 3 million seniors and people with disabilities use the Medicaid Program to avoid costly nursing home care. If we cut home and community-based care for this group of Americans, then they would have to turn to institutional care.

The short-term cuts, these cuts they are going to make in Medicaid, will lead to longer term expenses because we know that institutional care is more expensive than care at home or in the community. I guess, unless we just say to them: Tough luck, you are on your own. Tough luck. You have a disability? Cut your Medicaid. Can't live at home? Go live in an institution. Oh, the institution is no longer there because we cannot afford it--then I guess you have to go out on the street and beg.

Is that what we want to see? Like many third world countries where we see people with disabilities on the corners begging? Families with a child with a disability out in the street begging? Is that what we want? Do we want to walk down the street and see people who, through no fault of their own, are disabled and they are out there begging with a tin cup and a tin plate? Is that the kind of country we want to become?

To dismantle the Medicaid Program, as they would do under the Ryan budget, would dismantle our commitment to quality affordable health care for all. The Medicaid Program is a lifeline to hundreds of thousands of middle-class families--yes, middle-class families, working families who have children with lifelong disabilities such as Down syndrome or autism. Instead of cutting these families off from a critical lifeline, we should be strengthening the long-term viability of this program, Medicaid, reassuring these families that America is not going to turn its back on them when they need help the most.

You do not have to take my word for it about shredding this compact. I have said many times that we have a unique American social contract, a compact that evolved over our march from a society in which we had child labor,

which, if people were older and poor, they went to the county home; where children died in infancy; where, if people were disabled, they were put in dark places.

We evolved a social contract. We said, basically, in America we are going to provide a ladder of opportunity or ramp of opportunity. We are going to make sure we take care that we educate our young and take care of our elderly, a social safety net.

Here is the former Reagan economic adviser, Mr. Bruce Bartlett. Here is what he said:

Distributionally, the Ryan plan is a monstrosity. The rich

would receive huge tax cuts while the social safety net would

be shredded to pay for them.

Then again, we don't have to take those words. I think the bishops had something to say about that when the bishops said the Ryan budget fails the moral test. The Nation's Catholic bishops reiterated their demand that the Federal budget protect the poor and said the GOP measure ``fails to meet these moral criteria.'' That is the Ryan budget.

At the centerpiece of the Ryan budget is its promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare. Again, once we get past this political theater and look at what repeal of the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare would actually mean, it is not a very pretty picture. Repeal would reopen the Medicare prescription doughnut hole, requiring seniors to pay about $600 more per year on average for prescription drugs.

Thanks to the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare, about 86 million Americans received at least one free preventive service in 2011 and almost 1 million Iowans received at least one free prevention service in 2011. That would be repealed, and then they would be charged. Americans now get services such as mammograms, colonoscopies, and other cancer screenings. Eighty-six million Americans received free preventive services. This is in keeping with ObamaCare's goal that changes from a sick care society to a health care society. Rather than focusing all of our attention and money on emergency room care or when people get the sickest, we start to move it more upfront to preventive care. We would get to people early and prevent illness. We would keep people healthy and out of the hospital in the first place.

The Ryan budget shreds all of that. It is back to the old system we always had--no preventive care. When someone gets sick, they go to the emergency room, and that is busting us as a country. That is breaking our budget. We have to put more into prevention.

Mr. President, your mother was right, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I don't know why we have not learned that. We did learn it. We put that in ObamaCare.

The Ryan budget says, no, we want to get rid of that. The repeal of ObamaCare would allow insurance companies to deny people coverage because of a preexisting condition. Nearly half of Americans have some form of a preexisting health condition, and right now the Affordable Care Act covers all children. In 2014--just 1 year and a little over 2 months from now--everyone will be covered even if they have a preexisting condition.

This is Eleanor Pierce from Cedar Falls, IA. She was denied health insurance, when she lost her job, because of a preexisting condition of high blood pressure. Without coverage, she racked up $60,000 in medical debts. If you repeal ObamaCare, more than 30 million people would be denied access to affordable and comprehensive health insurance. It would make insured Americans pay more than tens of billions of dollars of uncompensated care when they show up in emergency rooms.

Actually, repealing ObamaCare would cost American families an average of over $1,100 extra in premiums annually right now that we are paying for uncompensated care when people show up in an emergency room. Repeal would kick more than 3 million young people off their parents' policy.

That hurts people like Emily Schlichting. She testified at one of our hearings. She is a young woman from Omaha. She said that ``young people are the future of this country and we are the most affected by reform. We are the generation that is most uninsured. We need the Affordable Care Act because it is literally an investment in the future of this country.''

She suffers from a rare autoimmune disorder. In the bad old days, that made her uninsurable. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare, she is now covered under her parents' policy until age 26. Guess what. In 2014 her preexisting condition will mean nothing. She will be able to get affordable health insurance. The Ryan budget says, sorry, Emily, you are on your own.

These are just a few of the ways in which the Ryan plan to repeal ObamaCare would drag us backward to the bad old days when insurance companies were in the driver's seat and millions of Americans were one illness away from bankruptcy.

Over the last few weeks, Governor Romney and Representative Ryan have been saying that the President's health reform robs Medicare. I heard that he said that in Florida last night. I don't know how else to say this, but that is totally false. That is untrue. First of all, nonpartisan economists have certified that the President's health care plan or ObamaCare has strengthened the Medicare Program and extends its solvency by 8 years. If we were robbing the Medicare Program, how could it extend its solvency by 8 more years?

The Affordable Care Act doesn't rob Medicare, it makes the program more efficient and more reliable. It saves $700 billion, not from beneficiaries, not from recipients who are on Medicare, but from overpayments to private insurance companies, providers, pharmaceuticals. It cracks down on fraud, waste, and abuse.

What is interesting is that the Ryan budget has exactly the same savings in his budget as ObamaCare has in the plan we passed here. It is the same and exact to the dollar. It is written the same way. As President Clinton said: ``You gotta give [him] one thing--it takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did.'' Ryan put in his budget exactly what we had in ObamaCare, and now they are attacking President Obama for what they have in their budget. Go figure. In both of his budget proposals, Mr. Ryan keeps all of the Affordable Care Act's medical improvements that we put in the Affordable Care Act.

I heard Mr. Romney in Florida last night attacking President Obama for doing what Mr. Romney said was marvelous about Mr. Ryan's budget. In short, Mr. Ryan's Medicare plan would end Medicare.

There is something else that I hear them say all the time. They say they are going to protect everyone over age 55. Under the Ryan plan he says they are going to go to this voucher care, but anyone over age 55 is protected. I have to ask: Protected from what? I mean, if it is such a good deal, why don't we do it for everybody? Yet Mr. Ryan and Mr. Romney say, no, everyone over age 55 has the same Medicare system and they don't get the voucher program. It is only for those under age 55. There must be something wrong with it then. If it is so darn good, why don't they put everybody in there right away? Conversely, if they are protecting everyone over age 55, why don't they protect everyone under age 55? Got it? If they are aged 55 and over they are unprotected. Put them on a voucher program. That is the dirty little secret they are not telling us.

Again, by repealing the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, 439,000 Iowa seniors would be forced onto these vouchers, 60,000 Iowa seniors would be forced back into the doughnut hole and paying more money for their drugs, and 400,000 Iowa seniors would pay for preventive services that they now get at no cost. More than 30 million people will be denied coverage under the Ryan budget. ObamaCare insures more than 94 percent of all Americans. That is what would happen; they would be denied coverage.

I will close with this: The bottom line is President Obama and ObamaCare protects Medicare. It keeps it solvent. It keeps everyone covered. The Ryan budget shreds the social safety net for Medicaid and destroys Medicare by turning it into a voucher system. ObamaCare protects Americans from insurance company abuses, expands coverage, increases the quality of care, shifts more into prevention and keeping people healthy. The Ryan budget does away with all of that and would drag us backward to the bad old days.

When we look at the Ryan budget--or the Romney-Ryan budget, since Mr.

Romney called it marvelous--we have to shake our heads in disbelief that they would take America back that far after we have come so far in covering people and getting rid of preexisting condition clauses. ObamaCare takes off caps on lifetime coverage for those who have a serious illness so they don't go bankrupt. ObamaCare makes sure kids in America can stay on their parents' policies. We don't want to go back, and that is why this Ryan budget must be totally defeated.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Abby Duggan, Anne Berry, and Nikki Hurt of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's proceedings.

Mr. President, I truly am sorry to see this happen on the Senate floor, I say to my good friend from Utah.

This has been a long time coming. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities started here, started in America. It started with the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Ninety-one Senators voted yea on that--strongly supported by conservatives, liberals, moderates, understanding that we had to take that next step in having a broad civil rights law that covered people with disabilities in our society. After that was passed and during the 1990s, it became clear that it kind of ignited a conscience around the world that we needed to do something globally about people with disabilities. So really the United States sort of became the leader in promoting this Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities at the United Nations. In fact, I have a quote I would share with my friend. When President Bush signed the bill on July 26, 1990--and we were all gathered at the White House--here is what he said:

This historic act is the world's first comprehensive

declaration of equality for people with disabilities--the

first. Its passage has made the United States the

international leader on this human rights issue.

So starting after that, our diplomats and others started working on this issue, and so this convention was developed through the United Nations. I do not know all the wherewithal of how that was done, but it was done and we had great input.

So now the convention has come out. It was sent to us a couple of years ago. Under our laws, the President, whoever it might be, has to send that out to all of the departments and agencies to see whether there are any conflicts of laws or did we have to change any of our laws to comport with this convention. Well, that bureaucracy takes a while. That took a couple of years to wind through. I do not know when the President got it back, but he sent it down to us this spring, and the finding was that the administration made it clear that through all of this, the ratification of this convention will not require any change in U.S. law and will have no fiscal impact. So it does not require any change in our laws. That makes sense because we are the leader in the world on disability law. We are the leader.

Senator McCain and I were the two leadoff witnesses when the Foreign Relations Committee had their hearing.

But we were not the only ones. Boyden Gray, who was so very helpful in 1990 in getting the initial ADA passed through the Congress, was there. He testified. Senator Dole sent a letter. He could not show up in person. Former Attorney General Thornburgh testified. Steve Bartlett, who was a Congressman from Dallas, later left the House, became mayor of Dallas, and now I think he is the executive director of the Business Council here, testified and has been instrumental in not only helping us pass the ADA but passing the ADA Act amendments of 2008 which the second President Bush signed into law.

I say this to my friend from Utah. This is not something that sort of popped up overnight. This has been a long time coming. A lot of effort has been put into it. As I said, all the departments have said there is no conflict with our laws. We do not have to change anything.

I also say to my friend that we do want to be that city on the hill, that shining city on the hill. This is one area in which the United States has no equal. We have taken the lead in the world on this issue. Countries come to us to see how they can do something, what they can do for people with disabilities. One hundred sixteen nations have already signed it, and the European Union. If we do not sign it, then when other countries have to change their laws to comport with this convention, I think we should be at the table. We should be there with them, sharing with them what we have done in America to make accommodations better, to make education accessible to people with disabilities, employment, all of those things. If we do not sign it, we are not going to be a part of that. Yet the rest of the countries are looking to us for leadership. So we should be at the table.

One other thing I would say to my friend from Utah is, we are a very mobile people. We travel around the world a lot. More and more people with disabilities are traveling, veterans with disabilities, nonveterans. And yet how many times have I heard from people who have traveled overseas say: Gosh, I wanted to go here, I wanted to go there, but because I have a disability I could not get around? It would be nice if other countries did this.

Well, other countries have now signed on to it. I was hoping we could vote and we could be a part of it and we could be a part of helping other countries to change their systems and to be more accommodating for people with disabilities. Quite frankly, I must say to my friend from Utah, I am perplexed, I really am, as to why this is an issue. I do not know why there is an objection. Maybe there is something I do not understand. I thought I did. But maybe there is something I do not know that the Senator can enlighten me on as to why we should not bring this up. I suppose if someone wants to vote against it, they can. It takes a two-thirds vote of the Senate to pass this.

I am perplexed as to why we cannot do this. It seems to be so bipartisan. It seems to me to be so much above the political fray. I do not know the politics in this whatsoever. So I had assumed we would bring this up and pass it. I was not aware this was going to happen this way. I was in my office when I was alerted to this. So I say, I do not know why we cannot bring this up and have a small debate on it and vote on it.

I have more to say, but I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I do not know what it would take to satisfy my friend from Utah. It goes out to all of the departments. They have to analyze this. They took over a year, almost 2 years, to do this, to find out if there were any conflicts with laws. So if you go through all of that, and all the departments report back and they cannot find any conflicts of laws or any laws we have that need to be changed, I do not know what would satisfy the Senator from Utah. What could that possibly be? He is almost raising an impossible barrier, unless the Senator can inform us as to what it would be that would satisfy him.

I do not know what else you could do other than what has been done on this bill. Again, I can understand people saying they had a hearing on it. I think it was well attended. But as I said, this is not something that sprung up overnight. This has been in the works for a number of years. To think that here we are the world's leader on this issue. I did not understand all the Senator said. He said something about it could have an effect on the election or something like that. I have no idea what he is talking about. If there is truly a nonpartisan, bipartisan issue, it is this. We have always made it thus.

When we passed the Americans with Disabilities Act, it was truly bipartisan. When the Supreme Court made their decisions in the Sutton case, the Sutton trilogy in the Toyota case in the late 1990s, early 2000, that kind of threw a monkey wrench into the works on employment in terms of disability, it caused a lot of consternation in the disability community and in the business community. We had to right that. We had to kind of tell the Supreme Court what we meant.

Well, that was in 2001. It took us 7 years of working with Republicans and Democrats and the administration, everybody. But in 2008 we passed a bill in the Senate unanimously, passed it in the House unanimously. President George Bush, the second Bush, signed it into law. I was down there for it. The first President Bush who signed the initial Americans with Disabilities Act was there. We were there with Republicans and Democrats. It was not seen as any kind of an issue.

If I am not mistaken, 2008 was an election year. And yet President Bush did not say, we cannot sign this because there is an election. This has nothing do with politics. So I find it almost bizarre that the Senate cannot act on something so close to us as a people, something we have taken such a lead on, something which means so much in terms of our leadership globally, that we cannot act on this.

Again, so many people have taken the lead. Senator Durbin and Chairman Kerry of Foreign Relations, Senator McCain, Senator Barrasso, Senator Moran, Senator Lugar, Senator Udall, Senator Coons, many bipartisans have been working on this.

I admit, obviously I have a deep interest in this since I was the Senate author of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It has been a key part of my Senate career for 25 years now--25 years. One of the great joys was passing the Americans with Disabilities Act with such bipartisan support. Thanks to the ADA, our country is a better place for everyone, not just for people with disabilities but for their families, for everyone. I cited earlier what President Bush said when he signed it. He said:

This historic act is the world's first comprehensive

declaration of equality for people with disabilities--the

first. Its passage has made the United States the

international leader on this human rights issue.

That is President Bush, 1990. The first. We were the first. We are the international leader on this issue. And now, 116 other nations, the European Union, can sign onto this but we cannot? This is truly bizarre.

Thanks to the ADA and other U.S. laws passed under the umbrella of the ADA, America has shown the rest of the world how to honor the basic rights of children and adults with disabilities, how to integrate them into society, how to remove barriers to full participation and activities that we now take for granted. We can take pride in the fact that our support for disability rights has inspired a global movement that led the United Nations to adopt the CRPD, the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. We led that. Our legal framework influenced the substance of the convention and is informing its implementation in the 116 countries that have signed and ratified it along with the European Union.

As I said, I am grateful for the leadership on both sides of the aisle; some Senators who were here before but not now, Senator Dole; some who were here who were active in supporting the Americans with Disabilities Act, Senator McCain; new Senators, Senator Barrasso, Senator Moran, and others. President George Herbert Walker Bush, the first President Bush, has been an active supporter of the CRPD. His White House counsel Boyden Gray, his Attorney General Dick Thornburg, have all been enthusiastic supporters of the Senate ratifying the CRPD. By ratifying this convention, the United States will be reaffirming our commitment to our citizens with disabilities.

As I said earlier, Americans with disabilities, including disabled veterans, should be able to live, travel, study, work abroad with the same freedoms and access that they enjoy here in the United States.

As the state parties, these different countries, come together to grapple with the best ways to make progress and remove barriers, we, America, should be at the table with them, helping them learn from our experience. As I said, the administration has submitted what they call reservations, understandings, and declarations that make clear that U.S. ratification of the CRPD will not require any change in U.S. law and will have no fiscal impact.

I do not know what else you can do to satisfy someone. I would say, if people feel that we do not want to take that leadership, then they can vote against it. But at least we ought to bring it up for a debate, discussion, and vote on the Senate floor. I would say that although U.S. ratification will have no impact on our laws, it will not have a fiscal impact, my hope is that U.S. ratification will have a moral impact--a moral impact.

My hope is we would send a signal to the rest of the world that it is not okay to leave a baby with Downs syndrome by the side of the road to die. It is not okay to warehouse adults with intellectual disabilities in institutions, chained to the bars of a cell where their only crime is that they have a disability. It is not okay to refuse to educate children because they are blind or deaf or they use a wheelchair. It is not okay to prevent disabled people from voting or getting married or owning property or having children. It is not okay to rebuild the infrastructures in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, and other war-torn or disaster-stricken areas without improving the accessibility of the infrastructure at the same time.

Former President Reagan frequently talked about America as a city on a hill, a shining example for the world of a nation that ensures opportunity and freedom for all its people. Thanks to our country's success in implementing the ADA, advancing that law's great goals of full inclusion and full participation for all our citizens, America indeed has become a shining city on a hill for people with disabilities around the globe. By ratifying the CRPD, we can affirm our leadership in this field. We can give renewed impetus to those striving to emulate us. We can give them that renewed emphasis by our example and by sitting down with them, if we are signatory to this treaty.

Again, I guess I have to recognize there are some Senators who were not part of the bipartisan vote to support it in the Foreign Relations Committee. I guess there are some who are not ready to support the unanimous consent request before us. My hope, since we are obviously coming to a close, is that we will use the time between now and when we come back in our lameduck session after the election to address any issues that have been raised about the CRPD. If Senators have issues and want them raised, let us get them out and then let us move forward, when we come back after the election,

with a strong bipartisan vote for us to ratify the CRPD.

When we voted on the ADA--the Americans with Disabilities Act--in 1990, we had 91 Senators. OK, there were nine who didn't vote for it. I understand that. But 91 Senators voted in support of that historic law.

My hope is, when this comes up for a vote after the election, we can achieve the same kind of strong bipartisan statement of support for the human rights of 1 billion people with disabilities around the world. We must reaffirm our leadership on this issue and let the rest of the world know we are not stepping back on this. We are going to maintain our support for the dignity and the rights of people with disabilities not only in America but anywhere in the world.

I am very sorry we couldn't have brought this up. I haven't done any head counts for any votes, but I think I know most of the Senators are people of good will, and I believe when they look at this and think about it, it is going to get an overwhelming vote of support. So I am sorry we couldn't bring it up, but I look forward to passing this when we come back after the election.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The deficiencies in America's roads, bridges and transit

systems cost American households and businesses roughly $130

billion, including approximately $97 billion in vehicle

operating costs,

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

--$32 billion in delays and travel time,

If you have been stuck in a lot of traffic.

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

environmental costs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Distributionally, the Ryan plan is a monstrosity. The rich

would receive huge tax cuts while the social safety net would

be shredded to pay for them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, for the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in on Thursday, September 20, 2012, at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Roundtable Discussion: Pension Modernization for a 21st Century Workforce.''

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Michael Kreps of the committee staff on (202) 224-6572.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mike Sobaski and Peter Visser of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's proceedings.

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

Mr. President, I said earlier this week when we came in on Monday that every day I would come to the floor--and other Senators I know are coming to the floor--to let the American people know what Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan are trying to hide from them. What they are trying to hide is what their blueprint is for America, where they want to take the country. People listen to all of their speeches on the campaign trail, but show me your budget and I will show you what your priorities are.

A budget is a blueprint, and we have from Mr. Ryan, our colleague in the House, his budget. I think, if I am not mistaken, it has been passed twice in the House and I think almost every Republican voted for it; the same as here in the Senate. So if Mr. Ryan and Mr. Romney were to be elected to the Presidency and Vice Presidency, they would then be able to move their budget through under a little-known procedure called reconciliation. It is a fancy word, but all it means is that it would go through with 51 votes.

I think it is important for the American people to know what is in that budget, what is in that blueprint for America. That is why this week I have taken the time to talk about the impact of the budget on health care and on education. Today I wish to talk about the impact of this budget on where I live--rural America, in the Midwest, where the occupant of the Chair lives. What is the impact of the Ryan budget on those of us who live in small towns, in rural communities, those who live on farms, and ranchers in the West? What is the impact?

First of all, I think it is important to step back and take a look at the Ryan budget blueprint overall. What it does is it further decimates the middle class in America. The very centerpiece of the Ryan budget is a dramatic shift of even more wealth to those at the top, targeting huge new tax cuts for the richest 2 percent.

For those making over $1 million a year--I have used this chart before and I will continue to use it--for those making over $1 million, they would get $265,000 more in tax breaks. That is added on to $129,000 that they already get from the Bush tax cuts. So under the Ryan plan, if a person makes over $1 million a year, they will get $394,000 in tax cuts. They are entitled to that. That is an entitlement. If a person makes that much money, they are entitled to get that tax cut. So when we

hear people talking about entitlements, remember, it is not just the poor, it is the rich too. They get a lot of entitlements.

They are going to have all of these new tax cuts. The total is $4.5 trillion over 10 years. Where do they get that money? They don't want to say how they would pay for it, but we have to look at the budget. The Ryan Republican budget would partially offset the tax cuts by making deep, Draconian cuts to programs that protect the middle class and are essential to quality of life in our country--everything from education, student grants and loans, law enforcement, clean air and clean water, food safety, medical research, highways, bridges and other infrastructure, agriculture, and energy.

As I said before, the Republican plan would end Medicare. The Ryan budget ends Medicare. They keep saying: Well, it ends it as we know it. Well, as we know it, that is what it is. It replaces Medicare with voucher care. Voucher care, not Medicare; voucher care. It would completely destroy Medicare. They say: Well, people can take their vouchers and keep Medicare, if they like, or they can go out and get a private plan. If one is a healthy elderly person, they might be able to get a cheap plan out there someplace. So all of the healthy elderly leave Medicare, which leaves only the sickest and the poorest in Medicare, so the costs skyrocket and it becomes unsupportable. That is the way to destroy Medicare.

Again, they talk a lot--Mr. Ryan and Mr. Romney--about reducing the deficit and balancing the budget. Even under the most rosy assumptions, the Ryan budget does not balance the budget until the year 2040--28 years from now. Mr. Ryan is a true acolyte of former Vice President Cheney who, in a very unguarded moment, said deficits don't matter. Well, they obviously didn't, because we see how much the deficits went up under the Bush-Cheney administration. I always say Mr. Ryan has also--he won't say it but his budget shows it--they don't think deficits matter either because they have deficits for the next 28 years.

Again, when I tell people this, when I outline the budget for folks back home, they say, You must be kidding; nothing could be that extreme. Well, the Ryan plan is extreme and unbalanced, and I am not making it up. Even former House Speaker Newt Gingrich criticized the Ryan budget. He called it rightwing social engineering. Well, all I can say is Newt got that one right. But that is Newt. Let's listen to the economic adviser to the icon of the modern day Republican Party, President Ronald Reagan. This is what he said. Let's hear what Mr. Bartlett said. He said: ``Distributionally, the Ryan plan is a monstrosity. The rich would receive huge tax cuts while the social safety net would be shredded to pay for them. . . .''

A monstrosity. This is the economic adviser to President Reagan. President Reagan wouldn't have a chance in today's Republican Party, not with the Ryan budget.

Again, the Ryan budget is radical--radical--in shrinking the size of government to what it was more than a half a century ago.

Today I wish to focus specifically on the devastating impact of the Romney-Ryan budget on American agriculture and on our quest for clean renewable energy and energy independence. The Ryan budget would make deep reductions in our Federal commitment to America's farmers and ranchers, to rural communities, and to consumers, especially consumer safety. The Ryan budget calls for reducing funding for agriculture conservation over 10 fiscal years by $16 billion below the funding levels that we have now in the present farm bill. That amounts to about a 24.5-percent reduction in conservation of soil and water. Our Nation cannot afford to back off on our commitment to agricultural conservation, not at a time when climate and weather are becoming more variable and damaging to the land and when farmers and ranchers need to keep increasing production to meet demands from a growing population.

More and more demands are being put on our land with a changing climate and that is why conservation funding is so critically important. Farmers and ranchers have made tremendous progress on conservation. Yet about a quarter--one-fourth--of U.S. cropland is still deteriorating from excess soil erosion.

Concerning water quality, nitrates in the Mississippi River and its tributaries were 10 percent higher in 2008 than they were 20 years ago. There have been no consistent nitrate declines in the past 30 years. Here are a couple of photographs to illustrate what I am talking about. This is a nice, pastoral view looking over some rolling cropland. This is a gully. We can see they put up some plastic here to stop it, but this is where the rain comes down, hits it, washes it off, down into the ditches. That is sort of the ``before'' photo. That is before conservation practices. Let's take a look at the same picture after we have used Federal conservation plans and the farmer's own money. Look what we have now--a nice, grassy waterway that absorbs all of that rain. That is what conservation does.

Concerning water quality, here is another picture. It is a picture of a gully washer, and we see the land being eroded there, the stream bank being eroded. That was before. This is what it looks like afterward--a nice stream with clean water, a lot of bank protection, a lot of trees. In fact, the farmhouse we saw in the last picture we can barely see above the tree line in this picture. That is what conservation does. The Ryan budget decimates that. It would cut 24.5 percent, almost 25 percent, of all of the funding for conservation in America at a time when we know what is happening in the Mississippi River, with all of the nitrates going down the Mississippi River, with the land erosion. As I said, at a time when our farmers are being asked to produce even more and more to meet a growing population.

Also, this doesn't just affect farmers, it affects all of us. Some people might say: Conservation, sure, that looks nice, saving the water and soil, but what does that have to do with me, because I live in Los Angeles or San Francisco or some place such as that. It has to do with the quality of life in America and it has to do with whether we are going to preserve the bountiful land that we have for future generations and whether we are going to commit ourselves to having clean water and cleaning up our rivers and our streams and to prevent our soil from flowing down the river.

That is conservation.

Another troubling feature of the Ryan budget is that it would impose new tighter limits on money appropriated for rural housing, rural water and wastewater systems, and economic development, as well as other vital Department of Agriculture functions such as food safety and agricultural research, education, and extension.

The Ryan budget adopted by the House would overall cut the funding for, as we said, nondefense domestic appropriations by about 18.9 percent, compared to the current appropriations levels, and that is for next year, that is for 2014 and for years thereafter.

Let's consider rural development programs at the Department of Agriculture. For fiscal year 2012, we appropriated $2.4 billion. That is for rural development. That money provides assistance to rural housing, rural cooperatives and other small businesses, and rural water and wastewater systems. That figure for fiscal year 2012 that I gave you--$2.4 billion--was already 9 percent below the 2011 appropriation for rural development. The 2011 appropriation was 11 percent below the fiscal year 2010 funding.

What would the Ryan budget do? Slash another 19 percent--18.9 percent--from rural development funding. That would amount to a cut of roughly $454 million in 2014--$\1/2\ billion in cuts to wastewater systems, rural cooperatives, and rural housing.

Consider the food and agricultural research, education, and extension sponsored by the Department of Agriculture. The fiscal year 2012 appropriation for this was $2.3 billion. Again, that was a slight reduction from appropriations in recent years. It was $2.3 billion in fiscal year 2012, and in fiscal year 2010 it was $2.59 billion. So we have already taken some reductions. We already know our current levels of investment in Federal food and agricultural research are falling far behind what is needed to meet the challenges I just spoke about, the challenges of producing food, more food to meet a growing world population, the need for

exports, but to do it in an environmentally benign way, which saves soil and water for future generations.

Well, the Ryan budget, again, lops off another 18.9 percent. That would be about $435 million in 2014--$\1/2\ billion from these vital programs. Again, these do not just affect farmers, these affect all of us.

Take food safety--just food safety. People like to know when they buy food someplace--they have a high expectation it is not going to make them sick. Well, the fiscal year 2012 appropriation was $2.5 billion for the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, and $1 billion for the Food Safety and Inspection Service. That is the Department of Agriculture. That is FSIS, the Food Safety and Inspection Service, that deals with Federal meat and poultry inspection. The FDA handles everything else.

Now, if the Ryan budget were adopted, again, there would be an 18.9- percent cut to both the FDA and the Food Safety and Inspection Service. Listen to this. That would be a cut of about $472 million from the Food and Drug Administration--to inspect our food and our drugs to make sure they are safe--and a cut of about $189 million from the Food Safety and Inspection Service that inspects meat and poultry. So consumers would have much less assurance in the safety of their food.

Need I remind people that the Senate and the House just passed this year a proposal to reauthorize the Food and Drug Administration, to give them more duties, more responsibilities, to do more inspections of food coming into this country from overseas. President Obama signed that into law. It was supported by Republicans and Democrats, consumers, pharmaceutical companies, and food companies. Everybody supported it--a great bill.

Now, here is the Ryan budget. They are going to take about $\1/2\ billion out of that per year. So we might have given them the authority in the authorization bill, but then we are going to cripple it and cut them off at the knees. We are going to cut them off--if we adopt the Ryan budget--by taking about $\1/2\ billion a year from the FDA.

Let's take a look at what it would do about energy because this not only means a lot to Iowa, it means a lot to our country in terms of moving ahead to develop renewable, safe, domestically grown energy.

The Ryan budget claims that President Obama has stifled domestic energy production by blocking or delaying the production of oil--both onshore and offshore--and gas. But what he fails to acknowledge is that under President Obama we have already opened vast expanses of public lands for oil and gas exploration, and production of both has increased--by 13 percent for domestic oil; 12 percent for natural gas-- since 2008.

But most egregious about the Ryan budget is that it completely ignores and, again, hinders our development of renewable energy.

Wind power. Wind power in America has now provided over 35 percent of the new electricity generation capacity installed in the United States over the last 5 years. In the last 5 years, wind energy accounts for 35 percent of all of that.

The wind power industry has doubled its electricity contribution four times just since 2000. Shown on this chart I have in the Chamber has been the growth of wind power capacity in the United States since 2000. It has doubled it four times and is continuing to grow.

The wind power industry now accounts for 75,000 American jobs--75,000 American jobs--heavily concentrated in California, Colorado, Texas, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Well, Mr. Romney has said he wants to do away with the production tax credit, wipe all that out.

I wonder how the people of California and Texas and Colorado and Iowa and Illinois and Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania might feel about that--not to mention the other States where they are just now beginning to develop their wind energy potential?

So the Ryan budget does away with the production tax credit, and Mr. Romney has given his stamp of approval on that.

Now, likewise, with liquid fuels. Americans clearly want to increase production and use of domestic renewable fuels. We have responded in the past with tax credits and renewable fuel use requirements, the renewable fuels mandate. Small business entrepreneurs have built ethanol and biodiesel biorefineries all across the country. They now supply about 10 percent of the fuel used in our gasoline-powered autos and trucks.

That is 10 percent that no longer comes from outside our borders. And here is the expansion, as shown on this chart, of all of the biorefineries in the United States just in the last few years. Look how they have grown. There are a lot of jobs there--a lot of jobs, a lot of liquid fuels. In fact, if you look at the chart showing the expansion of liquid fuels and the decrease of imports of oil, they just about match. Just take a look.

Going back to 2000, this line shows the increase in ethanol production and this line shows the decrease in oil imports. Boy, they just about match. As ethanol production has gone up, oil imports have gone down.

Well, the Ryan budget basically says we should roll back all this Federal intervention--just roll it back. But they say it is OK for the oil companies to go offshore and drill offshore, drill in very fragile areas of our country. I would not be surprised if they wanted to open up Yellowstone Park to oil and gas exploration pretty soon.

I just want to share the Iowa experience, if I might, about renewable energy because I think it speaks to the potential that we have nationwide.

Up until a decade ago--10 years ago--my State of Iowa was nearly 100 percent dependent on energy imports. All of our gasoline and diesel came from out of State. Most of our electricity came from out of State--coal. By contrast, today Iowa generates about 20 percent of its electricity from instate wind power facilities. We now have about 7,000 jobs in the wind power industry. We build the turbines, we build the blades, we build the towers--everything--there. We are teaching a whole new generation of young Americans at our community colleges how to fix, repair, replace, and maintain our wind generators.

So instead of paying others for imported coal or for coal-based electricity from other States, Iowans are using their money to build and install and operate their own wind turbines and generating electricity from our own instate renewable wind resources.

For liquid fuels it is the same. It is remarkable. As I said, remember, Iowa imported all of its oil and gas 10 years ago--gasoline. Iowa now has 54 biorefineries producing about 4 billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel a year. That is 50 percent more than the total amount of liquid fuels that we consume in a year. So Iowa, in 10 years, has gone from a total importer of liquid fuels to a net exporter. We make more than 50 percent more than we actually use, so we get to export to other States. Again, that is good-paying jobs. It is a renewable resource, with higher incomes for farmers. It helps Iowa's economy better than the economies of the Mideast oil states.

So America can follow in Iowa's footsteps but only if we continue the energy policies that have enabled these achievements. We need to extend the production tax credit to expand wind power and other renewable electric systems across the country, such as solar electric. The Ryan budget does not account for that. The Ryan budget drops all of these investments, in renewable biofuels also.

So, again, as I said, each day we have looked at the Ryan budget and how it affects health, how it affects education. Senator Boxer from California and others have come out and talked about how it affects our transportation infrastructure in America. But I also wanted to point out what it does to our renewable energy sector and what it does to agriculture, especially conservation, and how it would decimate our efforts to ensure clean water and stop soil erosion in all of our States.

So before I close, I just want to provide a broader context so we understand the consequences of the Romney-Ryan budget. Going back to the 1930s, the American people have supported and strengthened a kind of unique American social contract. That social contract says we will prepare our young and we will care for our elderly. That contract says: If you work hard and play by the rules, you will be able

to rise to the middle class or even beyond. That social contract says a cardinal role of government is to provide a ladder or ramp of opportunity so that every American can realistically--realistically-- aspire to the American dream.

Well, in one document, the Romney-Ryan budget would rip up that social contract, shred it. Do not take my word. Let's go back to Mr. Bartlett's quote again that I had right at the beginning. Do not take my word for it. It is right here. This is Ronald Reagan's economic adviser. He says:

Distributionally, the Ryan plan is a monstrosity. The rich

would receive huge tax cuts while the social safety net would

be shredded to pay for them.

How far do you think Ronald Reagan would get today with this Republican Party with that kind of statement?

So, again, the Ryan budget would rip up that sort of contract, replace it with a sort of survival-of-the-fittest, winner-take-all. It is sort of ``tough luck; you are on your own.'' If you were born wealthy, if you live in the right circumstances, you are OK, or if you win the lottery, God bless you. You are OK if you win the lottery, but otherwise, tough luck, you are on your own.

I agree with what President Clinton said last week when he said there are two competing philosophies here. One is the Romney-Ryan budget philosophy of ``you are on your own.'' The other philosophy is what I think we have been proposing; that is, we are all better off when it is a ``we are all in it together'' philosophy. Again, the Ryan budget, the Romney-Ryan budget is a blueprint for where they want to take America. This is not just some phony liberal thing thrown out here. This is their budget. This tells you where they want to go. It is a blueprint for a building. It is a blueprint for what they want America to become. Well, I do not think that is the kind of America my neighbors and I would find acceptable, certainly not one they find acceptable for their kids.

Mr. Ryan said that he had developed his views on his budget--they were formed by Catholic social teaching. Well, I don't know; I went to Catholic schools most of my life, and that is not what I was taught. I was not taught that you are on your own, that government has no responsibility whatsoever to ensure that you have decent health, safety, education, that you have a decent retirement so that you do not get put in the poorhouse. I was taught that we are all in this together. I see the bishops say the same. The Catholic bishops say the Ryan budget fails the moral test--fails the moral test. They reiterated their demand that the Federal budget protect the poor, and I said the GOP measures fail to meet this moral criteria.

So, again, I have taken this floor every day. I intend to take it every day from now until whenever we adjourn to keep pointing out, along with other Senators, what is in this Romney-Ryan budget. It is really scary.

A lot of times when we go out campaigning, we tell people: This is the most important election ever. How many times have you heard that one? This is the most important election ever. You hear both sides saying that. Well, I have been through a lot of elections. I have said that a lot of times. I will not say that. I am not going to tell anyone this is the most important election ever, but I will say this: This is the scariest election I have seen in my lifetime--the scariest. Oh, sure, we have had our differences before with Republicans and Democrats. That is OK. That is fine. That is the political give-and- take. And even under President Reagan, who was more conservative than any President we have had since probably Herbert Hoover or before, you know, sure they moved the country in a more conservative direction, but it wasn't like this. It wasn't anything close to what this Ryan budget is doing. Even Presidents who have run in the past, maybe with the exception of Barry Goldwater, but I do not know much about his budget-- I daresay I bet it was not this bad. I bet it was not anything close to this. This is why this is scary. This is turning America back to where we were before Roosevelt. I do not mean Franklin Roosevelt, I mean Theodore Roosevelt. That is how far back they would turn this country.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michael Mederos and Alexis Florczak of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's proceedings.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk again on the devastating so-called Ryan budget--which, of course, is now the Romney- Ryan budget. I will speak about that very shortly, but I also want to focus some attention on how the Ryan budget is preventing us from getting a farm bill this year. We have a farm bill we passed in the Senate, but the House can't get it done. Earlier this year the Senate passed a bipartisan farm bill. It had broad support from Republicans and Democrats, all the farm groups, consumer groups, and environmental groups. With all of that support, one would think it would be easy for the House, but the House has not followed suit. Unable or perhaps unwilling to bring the farm bill to the House floor, they similarly refuse to take up the Senate bill. As a result, our farm policy has languished at a time when farm country is literally burning up because of a drought.

As I understand it, the House is going to adjourn this week and go home without taking any action on a farm bill and leave our farmers and ranchers in the lurch when all the House needs to do is take up the Senate-passed bill, pass it, send it to the President, and he will sign it. Again, we passed the bill here with Republicans, Democrats, all the farm groups, consumer groups, and environmental groups supporting it. We even made a $23 billion contribution to reducing the deficit in the farm bill.

Well, it seems worth noting that one of the reasons the House can't act is seemingly because of the Ryan budget, which, of course, we know is just a proposal. The House has passed it. I think they voted on it 34 times, if I am not mistaken.

The Ryan budget calls for draconian cuts to our Federal nutrition programs; that is, the SNAP program, otherwise known as food stamps. It helps low-income families and families with maybe a modest income. Maybe they lost a job and are in transition and need support for 1 or 2 months before they get back on their feet. It helps with summer feeding programs for kids, feeding programs for low-income

elderly, and feeding programs that go to daycare centers. In other words, we have an abundance, and we are going to use this abundance to help make sure no one goes to bed hungry and people have adequate nutrition in our society.

Well, the Ryan budget made a draconian cut in the nutrition programs. Many of the House Republicans are saying they will not support a farm bill that doesn't have those draconian cuts, which I am proud to say the Senate bill does not have.

I hasten to add, as the former chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I long advocated cutting wasteful agricultural spending. For years I led the effort to get rid of direct payments, which the Senate bill does finally, and contributes, as I said, $23 billion in deficit reduction. So I think this situation shows what the Ryan budget is. It is emblematic of the Ryan budget.

Not only is the Ryan budget devastating for working and low-income Americans, but its insistence on cutting benefits for low-income Americans is getting in the way of setting commonsense policy for our farmers and ranchers as well. It is remarkable that so many people in the House in the middle of a drought would say: I am not going to vote for a farm bill that is important to our farmers and ranchers; I will not vote for it unless I can cut nutrition benefits for tens of millions of struggling Americans.

That is what the House Republicans are saying: They will not vote for a farm bill that will help our farmers and ranchers and is supported by every major farm group, all the consumer groups, the environmental groups, and it is supported in the Senate by a lot of Republicans. It is a bipartisan bill supported by the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Roberts of Kansas, former chair of the Agriculture Committee in the House. We passed that bill and yet the Republicans in the House are saying unless we have these draconian cuts to nutrition programs they will not pass the farm bill.

That is the kind of ``my way or the highway'' attitude of the tea party Republicans in the House. If they can't have it their very narrow way, they will not let the rest of the House act. They will not take up a bipartisan bill passed by the Senate.

Well, it is stunning what the House is refusing to do in refusing to pass a farm bill. All I can hope is that someone over there comes to their senses and gets that farm bill through before they adjourn and go home.

Now, since we recessed around the 1st of August and just came back yesterday, our colleague on the House side, Congressman Paul Ryan, has become the Vice Presidential nominee for the Republican ticket under, of course, Governor Romney, who has the nomination for President. Congressman Paul Ryan is not an unknown entity and not an unknown quantity. He has been around a long time. He has been chairman of the House Budget Committee, and he has put forward the so-called Ryan budget twice.

Well, what is a budget? A budget is a blueprint. It is like in order to build a house, one has to have a blueprint. Well, a budget for a city council is a blueprint for what they want to do for the city. A State budget talks about how the State is going to move. It is forward looking. What are we going to do in the future? The Federal budget is the same way. It is our blueprint. It is a blueprint for how we are going to move our country forward.

We have the Ryan budget. I think it is fair for us to take a look at that blueprint and let the American people know just what is in that budget. We face a fundamental choice in this year's election: Are we going to restore, rescue, and rebuild a struggling middle class or are we going to ship even more of our wealth and advantages to those at the top at the expense of the middle class?

Well, Republicans made it clear where they stand. They did so when nearly every Republican in Congress voted for the Ryan budget plan, and Governor Romney embraced the Ryan budget as ``marvelous.'' As I said yesterday, that is not exactly a word I think most Americans would use to describe something they liked, but I suppose if one is having tea at the Ritz and they are in that class of Americans, well, they might use the word to describe it as ``marvelous.''

At the very centerpiece of the Ryan budget is a dramatic shift of more wealth to those at the top. It targets huge new tax cuts for those at the top. Here is what it would do: $265,000 more per year for someone making over $1 million a year in income. That is on top of the $129,000 they are already getting from the Bush tax cuts. The Ryan budget would extend the Bush tax cuts and put $265,000 on top of that $129,000, which comes to around $400,000 a year if someone is making over $1 million a year.

We are going to hear a lot this fall about entitlements and cutting entitlements. Oh, we have to get a handle on entitlements. When they talk about entitlements, mostly Republicans talk about those programs that go to help people who are at the bottom rung of the ladder. They are talking about things such as the SNAP program, the nutrition assistance program or they are talking about job training programs or maybe title I. I will talk about education in a minute.

What about this entitlement? This is an entitlement: If a person is making over $1 million a year, under the Ryan budget they will be entitled to over $400,000 a year in tax cuts. What about that entitlement? No one wants to talk about taking away that entitlement, but that is an entitlement.

The Republican tax cuts would total $4.5 trillion over 10 years. Well, how do they pay for it? They don't want to say, but budget and tax experts understand this game very well. The Republican budget would partially offset these tax cuts by making deep and Draconian cuts that undergird the middle class and essentially the quality of life in the country--everything from education, student grants and loans, law enforcement, clean air and clean water, food safety, medical research, highways, bridges, and other infrastructures.

Lastly, the Republicans offset these new big tax cuts for those at the top by actually raising taxes on the middle class. You heard me right. The Ryan budget would actually raise taxes on the middle class. The Nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that under the Republican plan middle-class families with children would see their taxes go up on an average of more than $2,000 a year.

The bottom line is the Ryan budget does not reduce the deficit. The Ryan budget has a deficit for the next 28 years. The savings they gain is by cutting all of these programs that undergird the middle class and by raising taxes on the middle class. Basically, the lion's share of that is going to go into tax cuts for the top wealthiest Americans.

The truth is Representative Ryan is not interested in balancing the budget. Even under the best assumptions his budget would not balance until 2040, 28 years from now. As I have said, Mr. Ryan is obviously an acolyte of former Vice President Cheney who once said in a kind of unguarded moment that deficits don't matter. Remember that? Vice President Cheney said that. Obviously, George W. Bush and his administration took that to heart because we had the biggest deficit in history for the 8 years George W. Bush was President.

Ryan doesn't care about deficits. He only cares about tax cuts for the wealthy. They just believe if we give more and more to the top, it will magically trickle down on everyone else. We know that doesn't work.

The Romney-Ryan Republican plan is extreme and unbalanced. I am not making this up. You don't have to take it from me. Even former House Speaker Newt Gingrich criticized the House budget. He called it ``rightwing social engineering.'' That is what Newt Gingrich called it, ``rightwing social engineering.'' Newt got that one right.

The aim of Representative Ryan is to use the deficit crisis as a pretext for degrading and dismantling everything from Medicare and Medicaid to education, environmental protection, workplace safety, medical and scientific research, and on and on. Again, he doubles down on the theory that if only we give more to those at the top, it will magically trickle down.

Today I would like to focus specifically on the devastating impact of the Romney-Ryan budget on education. It is an unprecedented assault on education funding and a grave threat that this poses to school reform efforts across the United States.

I have the unusual perspective on this issue as both the chair of the appropriations subcommittee that funds our Federal education programs-- and I might point out that for the last 23 years I have either been the chair of that appropriations subcommittee or a ranking member; I have been on that subcommittee since 1985--and I am also now the chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which authorizes the education programs, and I have been on that committee since 1987. I have served under distinguished chairmen such as, Senator Kennedy, Senator Kassebaum, Senator Jeffords, Senator Gregg from New Hampshire, and Senator Enzi. Now I chair it. So for all of these years I have been on both the authorizing committee and on the appropriations subcommittee.

I must say I have been heartened by the exciting work being done in schools across the country to improve the quality of instruction for our students to close the achievement gap and graduate more students who are both college and career ready. Forty-five States and the District of Columbia have collaborated to create high-quality, common education standards, common core standards. The Obama administration's Race to the Top initiative has jump-started ambitious State-level reforms to turn around the Nation's lowest performing schools. In the HELP Committee, which I chair, working with Senator Enzi this year, we reauthorized on a bipartisan basis the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Positive changes are happening in America's schools. However, it is wishful thinking to continue to expect improvements if we continue to lay off tens of thousands of teachers, increase class sizes, and reduce instructional time.

As I said, Senator Enzi and I worked very hard to get a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act through our committee on a bipartisan basis, but we have been unable to get it on the floor, so we will have to do it again next year. But if we look to the Ryan budget, we will be laying off tens of thousands of teachers and we will increase class sizes and reduce instructional time. Is that where we want to go as a country?

As I said, this plan, which has been embraced by Governor Romney, would cut nondefense discretionary spending by 18.9 percent in fiscal year 2014--not this upcoming fiscal year but the next fiscal year. Let's take a look at what a cut that size would mean for Federal education programs. Let's take a look at title I. People ask: What is title I? It is the cornerstone of the Federal Government's support for elementary and secondary education in this country. The purpose of title I--and, by the way, it has been in the law since 1965; a great society program, I might add, which has done a world of good for our schools all across America. The purpose of title I is to help all students, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, meet high academic standards. Title I money goes to more than 90 percent of the Nation's school districts. Schools have a lot of flexibility with title I funds, but they use the money mostly to pay the salaries of teachers and teachers' aides who are helping students in danger of falling behind.

Under the Romney-Ryan budget, more than 10,000 schools across the country could lose their title I funding in fiscal year 2014. More than 37,000 teachers could lose their jobs. Not only would this hurt students, it is going to put more people out of work.

This title I program is about $14.5 billion a year. It is a national program. What we basically said in 1965 and we have said every year since is that elementary and secondary education is basically a local and State function. But we want to come in and help those areas that have low tax bases, a high proportion of underprivileged kids and low- income families. We want to come in and help them because there is one thing we know: A poorly educated child in one State will not necessarily grow up to be a burden in that State; that child can move to another State. So as a national policy, we said in 1965 and we have every year since, under Republican Presidents and under Democratic Presidents, Republican Congresses and Democratic Congresses, we have said title I is an important national program. Under the Ryan budget, if enacted, more than 10,000 schools would lose their title I funding.

Let's take a look at another important education program--one particularly close to me--and that is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Again, this has been in the law since 1975. The funding for this is about $11.6 billion a year. Again, under the Romney-Ryan budget, States could lose funding for approximately 25,000 special education teachers, aides, and other staff serving children with disabilities, again, in the year 2014--25,000 just in 1 year, the year 2014. This is special education teachers.

Again, I wish to remind everyone, and I have said many times here before, that States are required to provide a free and appropriate public education to students with disabilities. A lot of people say this is a Federal mandate. This is not a Federal mandate; it is a constitutional mandate. Even if the Federal Government didn't provide one nickel to any State for IDEA, the State would still have to provide a free, appropriate public education because the courts have decided that if a State provides a free public education for its students, it cannot discriminate. Before they said they couldn't discriminate on the basis of sex, national origin, race--Brown v. Board of Education--and under PARC v. Pennsylvania, another case, they said we can't discriminate on the basis of disability. We can't say we are going to collect taxes from all these people, but this family with the kid with a disability, they are out, and that kid doesn't get an education. We said that is unconstitutional, and I think all would recognize that. So States have a constitutional requirement, if they provide a free public education, to provide that free, appropriate public education to kids with disabilities. Even if Federal funding was cut, the States would still have to pay for it. They have to educate their students with disabilities.

If the Romney-Ryan budget were to pass, then what would happen is we would offload this cost of education to the States. What would happen? State and local taxes would go sky high. States and communities would still have to pay their special education teachers. If they are not getting enough from the Federal Government, they will have to find their own tax revenues to make up the difference. Just keep in mind, under the Romney-Ryan budget, approximately 25,000 special education teachers would not be funded under IDEA in 2014. Think about that.

Let's turn to higher education. Since 1972, we have provided what has been known as Pell grants, named after former Senator Claiborne Pell. Pell grants are for students who want to go to college. They qualify for these grants because of low income. Another one of those terrible entitlements, right? If a person is low income and they want to go to college, they get a Pell grant. It has been a lifesaver for so many families who otherwise could not afford to send their kids to college.

As we all know, a college education now is more important than ever. New jobs in every industry from manufacturing, construction, health care, and public health administration require workers who have the skill and the education. Look what happened in the recent recession. Workers with a college education have led the economic recovery. People with a bachelor's degree or better have gained 2 million jobs since the end of the recession. Meanwhile, workers with only a high school diploma or less have lost more than 230,000 jobs. There are over--I just saw it printed today--about 2 million jobs in America that are there but are not being filled because of lack of qualification for workers. That is education. So one would hope the Romney-Ryan budget, which they tout as being for creating jobs, would put a high priority on getting people into college, but it does just the opposite. In fiscal year 2014, nearly 10 million students could see their Pell grants fall, on average, by more than $1,000. Again, under the Romney- Ryan budget--this is an average, the current average award is $3,831. Under the Romney-Ryan budget in 2014, in one fell swoop it would go down to $2,599. For some students, that cut could mean the difference between whether they pursue higher education or not.

Let's go to the other end of the education spectrum. I started out talking about elementary and secondary and

high school and then I talked about college Pell grants. Let's look at preschool. Back in 1992, the Council on Education Funding, consisting of mostly CEOs from large corporations, came out with a study and a report on education as to what did business in America need in the future looking at education. They spent 2 or 3 years having hearings, investigating, and doing all that kind of stuff. This is a report from the business leaders of America. What did they say in that report? They said education begins at birth and the preparation for education begins before birth. The whole finding was we need to put more into preschool education. That was 20 years ago.

Last year, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--20 years later--came out with another study. This is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These are not social scientists; these are businesspeople. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce report said we have to put more money into preschool education. We, at the Federal level, have been doing that through a program called Head Start. We have had Head Start, I think, if I am not mistaken, since about 1968. High-quality, early childhood education has been proven to save taxpayer dollars in the long run by reducing the cost for welfare, special education and, might I add, criminal justice--read that ``jail time.'' One of the highest correlating factors--in fact, if I am not mistaken, the highest correlating factor for people who are incarcerated in our prisons is the lack of a high school education.

Under the Romney-Ryan budget, up to 200,000 low-income children and their families could lose access to Head Start--again, in fiscal year 2014. I am not talking about over the next 10 years, I am talking about in 1 year. We have about 970,000 children in Head Start today. In 2014, 200,000 would leave if the Romney-Ryan budget were to happen. That is their blueprint. I have to keep reminding folks, that is their blueprint for where they want America to go. This is where they want America to go.

Let me talk about a related topic, and it has a lot to do with education; that is, childcare funding. The Child Care and Development block grant provides subsidies to low-income families to help pay for childcare. These are families who are working, who are looking for work, and they depend on these subsidies to do so; otherwise, they wouldn't be able to work. By this point, it will come as no surprise that the Romney-Ryan budget would force approximately 95,000 low-income children across the country to lose access to high-quality childcare in fiscal year 2014.

I think we get the picture. The Romney-Ryan budget is a devastating assault on education at all levels. Childcare--and a lot of these components have education--Head Start, elementary education, secondary education, title I, IDEA, special education, Pell grants for college, all devastatingly reduced--again, not over 10 years, in year 2014.

I am struck by the fact that this budget of Mr. Ryan's is being proposed at a time when America's competitors are surging forward. China has tripled its investment in education and is building hundreds of new universities. Even in times of austerity and shrinking budgets, smart countries don't turn a chainsaw on themselves. They continue to invest in the future. And the most important investment in the future is an investment in education.

In the months ahead, Congress will likely focus on reducing the deficit, and this is appropriate. Certainly any strategy for solving our fiscal crisis must include sensible spending cuts, but we should not jeopardize our long-term economic growth and recovery by slashing education. We have a saying out in farm country: You don't eat your seed corn. Our children today, they are our seed corn for the future. You do not throw them on the trash heap.

On their own, the Romney-Ryan budget cuts to education defy common sense, but put in the broader context of their budget plan in its entirety, these cuts are not just ill-considered, they really smack of class warfare. The Romney-Ryan budget demands nothing whatsoever--not one dollar--from the wealthiest and most privileged people in America. Essentially, the Romney-Ryan budget is Robin Hood in reverse: It robs from the poor and gives it to the rich.

So let's get this straight. The American people need to know this. This is their blueprint. Under the Romney-Ryan budget, we have devastating assaults on education. Last night I covered health care. Others will cover other topics. The Senator from California covered transportation and infrastructure.

So again, under this plan, the United States--under Romney-Ryan-- should set aside $4.5 trillion over the next decade for tax cuts, with most of it going to the wealthiest 2 percent, but under the Romney-Ryan budget we cannot afford to sustain funding for public education.

In addition, congressional Republicans specifically want to take away the $2,500 American opportunity tax credit used by so many middle-class and modest-income families to help cover college costs. Again, because of Republicans' determination to further lower tax rates for the wealthy, many other middle-class college tax benefits are at risk. This is outrageous. This approach does not remotely reflect the priorities and values of the American people. We cannot--we cannot--be dragged backward into a winner-take-all society where the privileged and powerful seize an even greater share of the wealth even as our middle class is struggling and declining. For nearly half a century, robust Federal investments in quality public schools and access to higher education have been a critical pillar undergirding the American middle class. The Romney-Ryan budget takes a jackhammer to that pillar.

Going back to the 1930s, the American people have supported and strengthened a uniquely American social contract. That social contract says that we will prepare our young and care for our elderly. That contract says that if you work hard and play by the rules, you will be able to rise to the middle class and even beyond. That social contract says that a cardinal role of government is to provide a ladder of opportunity so that every American can realistically aspire to the American dream. In one fell swoop, the Romney-Ryan blueprint budget would rip up that social contract. It would replace it with a survival- of-the-fittest, winner-take-all philosophy that tells struggling, aspiring Americans and their communities: Tough luck, you are on your own.

As President Clinton said in his speech last week: There are two philosophies at work here--the Romney-Ryan blueprint budget, which says: Tough luck, you are on your own; if you win the lottery, you are OK; if you do not, too bad, or the philosophy being proposed by President Obama and so many of us here: that we are all in this together, the rising tide lifts all boats, that we have a social contract that we have adhered to for nearly 80 years now. We will invest in our young and care for our elderly. We will make sure there is a ladder, a ramp of opportunity for the middle class.

The ``tough luck, you are on your own'' philosophy of the Romney-Ryan budget is not the kind of America that my parents wanted or that they built for their children. It is not the kind of America that my neighbors in Iowa and across this country want to see.

So in the weeks ahead, our Nation faces an absolutely fundamental choice. I repeat: Are we going to rescue, restore, and rebuild the middle class or are we going to continue to shift even more wealth and advantages to those at the top, at the expense of the middle class?

Accumulation of riches by the wealthiest in our society is not the same as wealth creation by a society. If we are truly interested in creating wealth in our society, we should be investing in education, making sure there is a ladder or ramp of opportunity by making sure the benefits of our society go to those with new ideas and new information, and those people may be kids from very low income families, they may be kids with disabilities. That is true wealth creation of a society--not just giving more to people at the top.

So, again, the Romney-Ryan budget makes exactly the wrong choice. I disagree with that budget. America remains a tremendously wealthy and resourceful nation. Again, when you listen to what the Romney-Ryan budget is, when you look at it, it is sort of premised on the fact that we are busted,

we are broke, we cannot afford childcare, we cannot afford title I, we cannot afford Pell grants, we cannot afford it, we are broke, but we can find tax breaks for the wealthiest.

We are not broke. America remains the wealthiest society, the wealthiest country the world has ever seen. We have the highest per capita income of any major nation. So it kind of begs the question, does it not: If we are so rich, why are we so poor, why are we so broke? Because there has been a misallocation of capital, more and more going to fewer and fewer, not enough being used to educate our kids, provide a good college education, make sure we have the highest qualified teachers in all of our schools, that we have the best principals, that we can have a school system that is second to none in the world. That is the kind of America that we should have and that we can afford to do. We can afford to do this if we have the right blueprint. The Romney-Ryan budget takes us down the wrong road.

The middle class is the backbone of this country. We have to rescue, restore, and rebuild it, and we need leaders who have the backbone to do that for our middle class. It is not the Romney-Ryan budget.

Last night I spoke about the devastation on health care. I discussed what would happen in education. Next I am going to come to the floor and talk about what is going to happen to working families, what is going to happen to people in America when we take away some of the protections they have so they do not get injured, they do not get sick, so they can show up for work every day healthy. So we are going to look again at that devastation. Others will come to the floor and talk about the infrastructure and what that means for America.

Well, I do not often agree with Newt Gingrich, as people know, but he was right. This is rightwing social engineering. We do not need that in America. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan have put their stamp of approval on it. The American people need to know what is in that budget, and we intend to tell them between now and the time we adjourn and go home.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in open session on Thursday, September 13, 2012, at 10:30 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Improving College Affordability: A View From the States.''

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Leanne Hotek of the committee staff on (202) 224-9243.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Rebecca Sadwick and Jessica Flannery of my staff be granted privileges of the floor for the duration of today's session.

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

Mr. President, as many of my colleagues know, I am a strong and enthusiastic advocate of Stephanie Rose to serve as a district court judge in Iowa's southern judicial district. I was honored to recommend to the President that he nominate this outstanding attorney. I encourage my colleagues to vote for her confirmation when the vote occurs later this afternoon.

Let me begin by first thanking Senator Leahy and his staff for their hard work in advancing Ms. Rose's nomination. I also want to thank my senior colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, for his invaluable support and assistance. For all the years we have served together here in the Senate, which now goes on, I think, 27 years, Senator Grassley and I have cooperated in a spirit of good will on judicial nominations in our State.

I am proud we are continuing Iowa's tradition regarding judicial selections. I can honestly say that Senator Grassley has never opposed one of my selectees, I have never opposed one of his, even when there has been a different President in the White House, depending upon the party that is in control of the Congress. I think we have both been very judicious, if I might use that word, in our selection of people for the bench. I say that both on behalf of Senator Grassley and myself. So therefore we have worked together in this very close spirit of cooperation.

I also want to thank Senator Grassley's staff, in particular Jeremy Paris, Ted Lehman, and Senator Grassley's Chief of Staff, David Young, for their support and their help in advancing the nomination. On my staff, I want to thank my Chief of Staff, Brian Ahlberg, Dan Goldberg, Derek Miller, and Pam Smith, all of whom have worked very hard to make sure we had a thorough interview process, a thorough vetting of the candidates, and to make sure that we got to the point where her vote will be coming up later this afternoon.

Stephanie Rose possesses in abundance the personal and professional qualities we expect from those we consider to take on the profound responsibilities of a Federal judge. She is a superb attorney. Among jurists, prosecutors, and the defense bar, she has a reputation as someone who is unfailingly fair and ethical and who possesses exceptional legal ability, intellect, integrity, and judgment.

As Charles Larson, the former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Iowa under President George W. Bush, wrote to the Judiciary Committee, Ms. Rose ``has all the requisite abilities and traits to serve all litigants of the Southern District of Iowa in the manner expected of a federal judge. Ms. Rose would be a distinguished member of the judiciary.''

Ms. Rose was born in Topeka, KS, and moved to Mason City, IA, when she was 4. Both of her parents were public schoolteachers. She and her husband Rob have two children, Kyl and Missy. Ms. Rose has two sisters, one of whom was adopted after coming to the family as a foster child, one of five foster children her parents welcomed into their home.

After graduating from Mason City High School, Ms. Rose earned her bachelor's degree with honors from the University of Iowa in just 3 years. Then she earned her doctorate of jurisprudence from the University of Iowa College of Law in just 2 years, graduating in the top 5 percent of her class.

She could easily have commanded a big salary from a top law firm. Instead she opted for public service and long hours as a Federal prosecutor, working to uphold the rule of law, making our neighborhoods safer, and advancing the cause of justice.

I might add that she served as a Federal prosecutor under district attorneys appointed both by Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents. In 2009, the Senate unanimously confirmed Ms. Rose to become U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Iowa, having previously served 12 years as an assistant U.S. attorney.

Even before becoming U.S. attorney, she was lead counsel in 260 felony cases and made 34 oral arguments before the eighth circuit. She received a national award from the Department of Justice for her work in prosecuting the largest unlawful Internet pharmacy case in the United States.

As U.S. attorney, Ms. Rose has helped make Iowa and our Nation safer, reduced violent crime and gang violence, and promoted civil rights. In addition, she has the distinction of serving on the Attorney General's Advisory Committee. It is no surprise that the American Bar Association gave Ms. Rose a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating, the highest rating by the American Bar Association.

Finally, I wanted to comment on the historic nature of her confirmation. Ms. Rose was the first woman to be confirmed as U.S. attorney in Iowa's Northern District, and when confirmed later today, she will be the first woman confirmed as a U.S. district court judge in Iowa's Southern District.

Ms. Rose is a person of truly outstanding intellect, integrity, and character. She is exceptionally well qualified to serve as a United States district judge for the Southern District of Iowa. I urge all of my colleagues to support her nomination.

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

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

Mr. President, I spoke earlier in greater detail about the nomination of Stephanie Rose to serve as a district court judge in Iowa's Southern District. That is the vote that is coming up at 5:30.

As the Senate begins to vote, I want to reiterate what an outstanding nominee she is. It is no surprise the American Bar Association rated her ``unanimously well qualified,'' which is their highest rating.

After graduating from law school in just 2 years in the top 5 percent of her class, she served for 12 years as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Northern District of Iowa under attorneys who were appointed by both Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents. She was lead counsel in 260 felony cases and made 34 oral arguments before the Eighth Circuit. Most notably, she received a national award from the Department of Justice for prosecuting the largest unlawful Internet pharmacy case in the United States. Her work was so impressive that in 2009 I recommended her to the President to serve as U.S. attorney. In 2009 the Senate unanimously confirmed her, and she has been outstanding in her work as U.S. attorney since then.

Throughout her career of public service Ms. Rose has worked to uphold the rule of law, made our neighborhoods safer, promoted civil rights, and advanced the cause of justice. She possesses all the qualifications necessary to be a remarkably good Federal judge. She is a superb attorney and among jurists, prosecutors, and the defense bar she has a reputation of someone who is unfailingly fair and ethical and one who possesses exceptional legal ability, intellect, and judgment.

Finally, let me reiterate my appreciation to Senator Leahy, the chairman, but also, again, to Senator Grassley, my senior Senator from the State of Iowa, and to their staffs, especially Jeremy Paris and Ted Lehman, and Senator Grassley's chief of staff, David Young, for their support and all their assistance in getting this nomination through.

I also thank my chief of staff Brian Albert, and Dan Goldberg, Derek Miller, and Pam Smith on my staff and my committee staff.

In essence, Ms. Rose is a person of truly outstanding intellect and character. She is exceptionally qualified to serve as U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Iowa. I urge my colleagues to support her confirmation when the vote occurs in just a few minutes.

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

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