Floor Statements

Mr. President, as the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I wish to respond to some of the shrill rhetoric and outright misinformation regarding President Obama's recent recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

When all the political grandstanding is done, at the heart of this dispute is the ability of these two agencies to carry out their congressionally mandated functions. One is charged with

defending the rights of consumers and the other defending the rights of workers.

Republican partisan obstruction and filibusters prevented confirmation of nominees to lead both these agencies, which would have prevented their legal authority to act. With the rights of millions of American workers and consumers on the line, the President did what was his duty to preserve the functioning of two critically important agencies--agencies that are essential cornerstones of our efforts to rebuild and restore our struggling middle class.

At a time when our Nation is engaged in serious soul-searching about the demise of the middle class, the missions of the Consumer Bureau and the Labor Board have become particularly essential. These agencies are tasked with the vital responsibility of standing for consumers and workers against Wall Street and powerful corporations.

Indeed, the true significance of the debate over the President's recess appointments is not about legislative or secure power or the meaning of a pro forma session, but the true significance is about whether we will let the powerful and well connected use the political process to rig the system or if, instead, we will enact and enforce laws that will give workers and consumers a fighting chance at a decent middle-class life.

As a centerpiece of the Dodd-Frank bill to rein in the recklessness on Wall Street, the idea behind the Consumer Bureau is simple. We need a cop on the beat, looking out for the best interests of consumers who use financial products, as we have regulators looking out for the financial health of banks, as we have a Food and Drug Administration, the FDA, looking out for the safety of food and drugs for consumers or the Consumer Product Safety Commission that looks out for and protects our kids from harmful toys.

A strong Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will ensure that consumers are not lured into debt through hidden fees. It will simplify disclosures and reduce paperwork so consumers are not faced with mountains of paperwork they cannot understand. It would oversee providers of consumer credit such as payday lenders--which for years have acted similar to banks but without facing any kind of bank regulation.

Additionally, as student debt surpasses credit card debt as the largest source of consumer debt in America, the Bureau can play a critical role in helping families better understand the increasing challenges of financing a college education as well as bringing some sanity to the private student loan marketplace.

Despite these laudable goals, Republicans refused to confirm Richard Cordray, the President's nominee to lead the agency, unless the President would agree to water down the law and weaken consumer protections. Forty-four Republican Senators served notice they would not confirm anyone to the position of Director unless structural changes were made to the Bureau that would effectively gut its ability to stand for consumers. When the President refused, they filibustered and prevented an up-or-down vote on this nomination, leaving the consumer bureau unable to fully interpret and enforce the law.

As a consequence, Americans across the country were left in limbo, with limited ability to stand up to big banks and financial scam artists. Leaving the Bureau so powerless was unacceptable, so the President had no choice but to use his constitutional authority to ensure that this critical agency can continue to perform its legislatively mandated mission.

The ramifications of Republican obstruction were even more dire at the National Labor Relations Board, where the impending loss of a quorum of members meant the Board would become totally inoperable if the President did not step in to fill the vacancies. Similar to the consumer bureau, the NLRB, as it is known, is a government agency tasked with standing up for working families. In its very text, the very text of the law that created the Board, it established that the policy of the United States is to encourage the process of collective bargaining. Senator Robert Wagner of New York, the act's author in 1935, explained that collective bargaining would increase the purchasing power of American workers and therefore aid our national recovery from the Great Depression. This law was one of the cornerstones of a new American economic policy that created the largest middle class in history, gave rise to the economic boom that transformed America and the world, and brought economic security and a better life to generations of Americans.

Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with this mission. Some very powerful interests think that a few at the very top should have a monopoly power in our economy; that they should be able to set all the rules. These interests have lined up allies in Congress to wage a relentless crusade against the National Labor Relations Board. In all my years in public office, I have never seen anything like it.

Last year, Republicans in the House held at least eight hearings, specifically addressing the NLRB. They passed two bills to amend the National Labor Relations Act to strip workers of their rights. Republican elected officials have tried to defund the agency. They have threatened the professional credentials and livelihoods of nonpartisan career employees and even called on a Republican board member to resign, in order to incapacitate the agency. On the campaign trail, Republican Presidential candidates have raged against the National Labor Relations Board and its employees.

What are the great crimes these dedicated public servants at the NLRB are supposed to have committed? First, they started a new initiative to make sure workers are aware of their rights under law. In April of this year, employers will have to post a notice about National Labor Relations Act rights on the office bulletin board, next to other longstanding notices about the minimum wage, workplace safety, and other basic worker protections. This hardly seems to be an unreasonable burden.

Second, the NLRB prosecuted a case against a company that allegedly retaliated against its employees for going on strike. I spoke at length about this case last year, on numerous occasions, on the floor of the Senate because there was so much misinformation about it. While the case was brought against a powerful company and became very controversial as a result, prosecuting retaliation cases is unquestionably a necessary and important part of the NLRB's responsibility. After all the fire and brimstone and all the threats from Republicans against this agency and the Governor of a certain State, as has happened in the past, this dispute was resolved by the company and the union. It has happened so many times in the past without us having to do a thing about it.

Third, the National Labor Relations Board enacted a rule to standardize timelines for national elections. Under the act, after workers petition for an election, the NLRB holds a hearing to decide who should be in the bargaining unit and who should not be. In recent years, many employers have started flooding that hearing with frivolous litigation to stall the elections for months or even years, while arguing or appealing over every minor detail their lawyers can imagine. The NLRB decided to fix this problem and make sure workers get a vote in a reasonable period of time. The Board said workers should vote and then, if necessary, the ballots would be sequestered while the litigation drags on over certain peripheral issues. The new rules do not encourage union organization and they do not discourage it; they just give workers the ability to say yes or no in a reasonable period of time. Workers should not have to wait until innumerable lawsuits, one after the other, are disposed of before they even get a chance to vote.

In response to these eminently reasonable and fair proposals, Republicans have attempted to shut the Board down by blocking all nominations. Senator Graham of South Carolina vowed publicly to block all nominees to the labor board, even if it meant the agency would cease to function. In his opinion, Senator Graham said, ``The NLRB as inoperable could be considered progress.'' To the thousands of American workers every year who rely on the NLRB to enforce the law and defend their rights, that must sound pretty cold-blooded, a direct attack on middle-class Americans.

In practice, disabling the NLRB would mean American workers would

have nowhere to turn if their rights are violated. Thousands of American workers are fired every year for trying to organize a union in their workplace--their legal right, by the way. With the labor board out of commission, these workers might never get their jobs back. If an employer or a union refused to adhere to a contract, there would be no NLRB to resolve the dispute.

The labor board also ensures that unions do not step outside the law in their interactions with workers or employers. Those cases would be stuck in limbo too. Perhaps that is why a senior counsel to the National Federation of Independent Business told the Congressional Quarterly that ``to have the Board totally shut down would be a travesty.''

The President averted this travesty by appropriately exercising his recess appointment authority. Indeed, the President showed restraint by only appointing nominees to agencies that would lose their ability to function due to Republican obstruction. Acting to ensure the continued smooth functioning of government under these circumstances is a President's--whether it is President Obama or any other President-- constitutional responsibility. As constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe has explained, the Constitution considered the possibility that congressional squabbles would lead to paralysis and determined:

The Constitution that has guided our Republic for centuries

is not blind to the threat of Congress's extending its

internal squabbles into a general paralysis of the entire

body politic, rendering vital regulatory agencies headless

and therefore impotent. Preserving the authority the

President needs to carry out his basic duties, rather than

deferring to partisan games and gimmicks, is our

Constitution's clear command.

Again, I say, if my colleagues do not like the National Labor Relations Act or Dodd-Frank, they can introduce a bill and try to get support to change the law. Of course, Republicans know such a bill would fail miserably. Instead, they are trying to short-circuit the process laid out by the Constitution to pass legislation. Under their theory, under the Republicans' theory, just 41 Senators could effectively repeal an existing law by simply denying an up-or-down vote on the President's nominees. Think about that. We pass a law by majority vote. It might even get through; of course, overriding a filibuster with 60 votes. The President signed it into law. A couple years later, the minority says we want to change it. We do not have the votes to change it, but we can block a nominee, nominees to the agency, and effectively shut down the agency with only 41 Senators. That is what is going on here. That is what is going on.

President Obama took a bold but necessary step. Stepping in to protect ordinary Americans from the consequences of congressional dysfunction is hardly an intrusion on Congress's authority. It is the essence of leadership.

I might point out I think facts will show that the last President before President Obama, President Bush, exercised his authority to appoint recess appointees 171 times. I think President Obama is right now around 20 or 21, something like that.

Since President Obama was elected, Republicans have openly stated their No. 1 goal is not to govern or legislate; their No. 1 goal is to prevent the reelection of President Obama. Republicans in Congress may have the luxury of playing these political games but any President does not. Americans are counting on this President to do what is right for the middle class and that is unquestionably what he did by making these recess appointments to these two vital consumer protection agencies, the Consumer Protection Agency and the National Labor Relations Board.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize two individuals for their extraordinary service to the Everybody Wins! Program in Iowa.

As many of my colleagues know, Everybody Wins! is a literacy and mentoring program for elementary school students. The program gives adults the opportunity to spend one lunch hour a week reading with a child in a public school.

Fourteen years ago, Senator Jim Jeffords recruited me to join him as a volunteer for the Everybody Wins! Program in Washington, D.C. Since then, I have been an Everybody Wins! volunteer at Brent Elementary School in Washington D.C. I have seen the tremendous impact this program has both on the adult volunteers and their young student partners.

I was very happy when Everybody Wins! was launched in my home State of Iowa in 2002. Two people I want to recognize today joined Everybody Wins! as volunteer readers and founding board members in 2003. Both of them retired in the last year after contributing to the solid foundation on which the Iowa program rests today.

Mary Ann Nielsen joined the board of Everybody Wins! Iowa in the spring of 2003. She continued her service, including as president of the board, until May of 2011. Her work on the board included serving on three executive director search committees, as well as on the personnel and executive committees.

Amy Elbert also joined the board in the spring of 2003, and continued her service until May of 2011. She devoted substantial time and energy to fundraising, two executive director search committees, as secretary of the board, and as chair of the outreach committee. Amy also has enjoyed reading relationships through the program for the past 4 years.

For their commitment to our youth, to literacy, and their long-time contributions to Everybody Wins! Iowa, I extend my sincere thanks to Mary Ann and Amy and wish them all the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. President, throughout my career in public service I have been committed to ensuring that children in this country receive a quality education. I believe that each child should be educated in a supportive, caring, stimulating environment in which they are treated as an individual and provided with the tools they need to succeed. I also believe no child should be subjected to abusive disciplinary strategies or violent behavioral interventions while in school and no child should be secluded or unnecessarily restrained. I have fought to ensure that all children be treated fairly in schools in this country, and as a result I am pleased to introduce today the Keeping All Students Safe Act. This important legislation will protect school children against ineffective harmful and life-threatening seclusion and restraint practices.

In 2009 the Government Accountability Office conducted a study on seclusion and restraint in schools. This study revealed that although the Children's Health Act of 2000 amended Title V of the Public Health Service Act and regulated the use of seclusion and restraint on residents and children in hospital facilities that receive Federal funds, there was no Federal law restricting the use of seclusion and restraint in schools. In a hearing on May 19, 2009 parents of children who were injured or killed as a result of the use of seclusion and restraint in schools testified before the House Committee on Education and Labor. This testimony from parents highlighted the very real need for this legislation. The Keeping All Students Safe Act addresses many of the concerns raised at that hearing and by the G.A.O. study. The act specifically prohibits seclusion, the use of locked or barred rooms where children are left unattended, without supervision. The act also prohibits mechanical and chemical restraints, physical restraints that are life-threatening, including those that restrict breathing, and aversive behavioral interventions that compromise a student's health and safety.

The G.A.O. study also revealed that restraint and seclusion-related fatalities and injuries most often involve children with disabilities. This vulnerable population must especially be protected from this type of abuse, and this legislation seeks to do just that. The Keeping All Students Safe Act prohibits the use of all types of restraint and seclusion in all schools receiving Federal financial assistance, and prevents the use of this type of intervention from being included in any child's individualized education plan. This prohibition is included in the act because we know that planning for the use of restraint or seclusion has been shown to actually increase their use.

Although the act does allow for the use of restraint in emergency situations to prevent serious bodily injury to the student, other students in the classroom, or staff, it also requires

staff to be trained and certified by a State-approved crisis intervention training program as to how to approach these types of emergency situations. This will help to ensure that in the rare instances where restraint is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury, all techniques will be administered appropriately and unnecessary injury can be avoided.

Another issue uncovered by the G.A.O. study was that no web site, Federal agency, or other entity currently collects comprehensive data related to the use of restraint and seclusion in our Nation's schools. This Act will remedy this situation, as it requires each State educational agency to prepare and submit a report documenting, among other information, any instances in which physical restraint was imposed upon a student. This will allow us to track the use of restraint and to determine if our efforts to decrease it are being successful.

Support for this Act comes from many sectors of the education community. Organizations such as Easter Seals, United Cerebral Palsy, The Arc of the United States, the National Disabilities Rights Network and the Council of Parent and Attorney Advocates all support this legislation. In addition, in the House, our colleague, Representative George Miller, introduced in April a companion bill with bi-partisan support.

This act is an important step towards protecting all children within our Nation's schools from the use of restraint and seclusion. No child should be subjected to physical restraint or seclusion as a disciplinary technique or behavior intervention strategy.

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

Mr. President, throughout my career in public service I have been committed to ensuring that children in this country receive a quality education. I believe that each child should be educated in a supportive, caring, stimulating environment in which they are treated as an individual and provided with the tools they need to succeed. I also believe no child should be subjected to abusive disciplinary strategies or violent behavioral interventions while in school and no child should be secluded or unnecessarily restrained. I have fought to ensure that all children be treated fairly in schools in this country, and as a result I am pleased to introduce today the Keeping All Students Safe Act. This important legislation will protect school children against ineffective harmful and life-threatening seclusion and restraint practices.

In 2009 the Government Accountability Office conducted a study on seclusion and restraint in schools. This study revealed that although the Children's Health Act of 2000 amended Title V of the Public Health Service Act and regulated the use of seclusion and restraint on residents and children in hospital facilities that receive Federal funds, there was no Federal law restricting the use of seclusion and restraint in schools. In a hearing on May 19, 2009 parents of children who were injured or killed as a result of the use of seclusion and restraint in schools testified before the House Committee on Education and Labor. This testimony from parents highlighted the very real need for this legislation. The Keeping All Students Safe Act addresses many of the concerns raised at that hearing and by the G.A.O. study. The act specifically prohibits seclusion, the use of locked or barred rooms where children are left unattended, without supervision. The act also prohibits mechanical and chemical restraints, physical restraints that are life-threatening, including those that restrict breathing, and aversive behavioral interventions that compromise a student's health and safety.

The G.A.O. study also revealed that restraint and seclusion-related fatalities and injuries most often involve children with disabilities. This vulnerable population must especially be protected from this type of abuse, and this legislation seeks to do just that. The Keeping All Students Safe Act prohibits the use of all types of restraint and seclusion in all schools receiving Federal financial assistance, and prevents the use of this type of intervention from being included in any child's individualized education plan. This prohibition is included in the act because we know that planning for the use of restraint or seclusion has been shown to actually increase their use.

Although the act does allow for the use of restraint in emergency situations to prevent serious bodily injury to the student, other students in the classroom, or staff, it also requires

staff to be trained and certified by a State-approved crisis intervention training program as to how to approach these types of emergency situations. This will help to ensure that in the rare instances where restraint is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury, all techniques will be administered appropriately and unnecessary injury can be avoided.

Another issue uncovered by the G.A.O. study was that no web site, Federal agency, or other entity currently collects comprehensive data related to the use of restraint and seclusion in our Nation's schools. This Act will remedy this situation, as it requires each State educational agency to prepare and submit a report documenting, among other information, any instances in which physical restraint was imposed upon a student. This will allow us to track the use of restraint and to determine if our efforts to decrease it are being successful.

Support for this Act comes from many sectors of the education community. Organizations such as Easter Seals, United Cerebral Palsy, The Arc of the United States, the National Disabilities Rights Network and the Council of Parent and Attorney Advocates all support this legislation. In addition, in the House, our colleague, Representative George Miller, introduced in April a companion bill with bi-partisan support.

This act is an important step towards protecting all children within our Nation's schools from the use of restraint and seclusion. No child should be subjected to physical restraint or seclusion as a disciplinary technique or behavior intervention strategy.

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

Mr. President, as a U.S. Senator, I have no greater responsibility than to work to ensure our Nation's security. In that regard, I believe our Armed Forces must have all the tools they need to keep our country safe. That is why I support the vast majority of the provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act.

The bill takes some small steps towards reining in runaway defense spending, which has nearly doubled in the past decade. This bill authorizes $26.6 billion less than requested at the beginning of the year, providing more than enough to defend our interests, while chipping away at the Pentagon's nonstop growth. It also lays the groundwork for reevaluating outdated Cold War-era overseas deployments in Europe and the Pacific that are both costly and increasingly unnecessary.

All of these provisions I support and believe are important. However, because I believe this bill infringes on critical constitutional values, I must oppose final passage. I believe we can do a better job of protecting our national security without compromising these important values.

This Nation has long been a beacon of liberty and a champion of rights throughout the world. Yet, since 9/11, in the name of security, we have repeatedly betrayed our highest principles. The past administration believed it could eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant or court order. It utilized interrogation techniques long considered immoral, ineffective, and illegal, regardless of laws and treaties. And, it intentionally sought to put detainees beyond the rule of law. Thankfully, the current administration has ended the worst abuses of these practices, despite the efforts of some of my colleagues to stymie these efforts.

However, I am deeply concerned that the conference report continues us on a dangerous path, which sacrifices long-held and durable principles at the altar of fear and short-term expediency.

To begin, this bill fails to make clear that under no circumstance can an American citizen be detained indefinitely without trial. I simply do not

believe that a person should be seized on American soil and indefinitely detained without charges and without due process of law.

Second, it mandates, for the first time, that non-American terrorist suspects arrested in the United States will be detained by the military rather than civilian law enforcement. Throughout our history, there has been a clear divide between our military--which fights wars abroad--and law enforcement in the United States, and that divide has worked. For example, since 9/11, over 400 terrorists have been successfully convicted in article III, not military, courts. For persons in this country, it is a dangerous precedent to not only authorize but actually require military custody.

Finally, the bill would make it much more difficult to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. There simply is no compelling reason to keep the facility open and not to bring these detainees to maximum security facilities within the United States. The detention center is a recruiting tool for those who wish to cause us harm and been a stain on our Nation's honor. I agree with former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who said that ``we have shaken the belief that the world had in America's justice system by keeping [the detention center at Guantanamo Bay] open. We don't need it and it's causing us far more damage than any good we get for it.''

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the administration declared a broad and open-ended ``war on terror.'' I have always considered this a flawed description of the challenge that confronted us after the 9/11 attacks. After all ``terror'' is an endlessly broad and vague term. And a ``war on terror'' is a war that can never end because terrorism and terrorists will always be with us. Because of the never-ending nature of this so-called war on terror, it offers a rationale for restricting civil liberties indefinitely. This is not healthy for our democracy or for our ability to inspire other countries to abide by democratic principles.

Mr. President, we will not overcome terrorism with secret prisons, with torture, with degrading treatment, with individuals denied basic rights; rather, we shall overcome it by staying true to our highest values and by insisting on legal safeguards that are the very basis of our system of government and freedom. Today is the 220th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The values embodied in that remarkable document have bound our Republic together for over 200 years and can bind us for 200 more if we hold them close.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions I report favorably the following nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination 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 open session on Thursday, December 15, 2011, at 10 a.m. in SD-430 to conduct a hearing entitled ``Prescription Drug Shortages: Examining a Public Health Concern and Potential Solutions.''

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact the committee at (202) 224-7675.

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

Madam President, I have come to the floor on numerous occasions this year to discuss the distressed state of America's middle class. In fact, in our committee, we have had a series of hearings looking at the state of the middle class and what is happening to the middle class in America. In recent decades, our Nation's once secure middle class has struggled in the face of stagnant wages, declining job security, rising indebtedness, and disappearing pensions, not to mention sharply higher costs for health care, education, food, and energy.

It wasn't always this way. In the three decades after World War II, America's middle class grew rapidly. Incomes rose steadily as the middle class secured its fair share of the expanding national wealth. The Federal Government invested generously in infrastructure building, innovation, and education, vastly expanding opportunity for people to move into the middle class. America became a more equal, fair, and just society, built on a solid bedrock of a strong middle class.

I am an example of that. My father had an eighth grade education. He was a coal miner. My mother was an immigrant with very little formal education. Yet their three children were able to go to good schools, get good jobs, and get an education. All three of their children graduated from Iowa State University, a great land grant college, because it didn't cost very much and we could afford to go there and we were able to enter the middle class from those humble beginnings.

But beginning in the 1970s, much of that progress started to come to a halt. Our manufacturing base declined, and the U.S. economy became increasingly dominated by financial markets and Wall Street--a trend that was accelerated by ill-advised deregulation. Soaring profits and sky-high salaries attracted more of our Nation's best and brightest to pursue careers in finance at the expense of engineering, teaching, and public service.

Wall Street bankers were emboldened by deregulation. They were incentivized by huge salaries and bonuses to take ever greater risks, and they devised ever more exotic and risky investment schemes. As we all know, in 2008, this frenzy of greed and recklessness culminated in the catastrophic meltdown of our Nation's financial system. This economic crisis was a hammer blow to our already struggling middle class. The value of Americans' homes and retirement accounts plummeted, millions lost their jobs or were forced into foreclosure, and hopes for the future dimmed.

In the wake of this financial crash, with its pervasive damage to the middle class, the American people demanded action to rein in the worst abuses of Wall Street and to prevent a replay of 2008. This led to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act--let me repeat that, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act--the most sweeping reform of our financial system since the Great Depression. For hundreds of millions of American consumers in their everyday lives, no aspect of this law is more important and transformative than the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Again, read the words of the legislation. It is the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, a big part of the bill was to build in consumer protections, and one of those was to create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

I have come to the floor in strong support of the nomination of Richard Cordray to be Director of this Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The idea behind this bureau is very simple. We need a cop on the beat looking out for the best interests of consumers who use financial products, just as we have regulators looking out for the financial health of banks.

A strong Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will ensure consumers are not lured into debt through hidden fees, for example. It will simplify disclosures and reduce paperwork so consumers aren't faced with mountains of paperwork they can't understand. It will oversee providers of consumer credit, such as payday lenders, which for years have acted like banks without facing any kind of banking regulation. Additionally, as student debt surpasses credit card debt as the largest source of consumer debt--which has already happened, by the way, that student debt right now is larger than credit card debt--this Consumer Protection Bureau can play a critical role in helping families better understand the increasing challenges of facing a college education and financing it as well as bringing some sanity to the private student loan marketplace.

Finally, a key function of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will also provide help to our veterans through the Office of Service Member Affairs. Sadly, too often our servicemembers fall victim to abusive financial traps upon their return home. The Bureau has made an outstanding choice for leadership of this office with the selection of Mrs. Hollister Petraeus. But cynically, my Republican colleagues have chosen to protect the unscrupulous lenders that prey on military families. They would rather neuter the entire agency, have no Director, than to fully empower Mrs. Petraeus to protect military personnel and their families from all forms of predatory lending activities.

These steps are essential elements of helping to tilt the scales of our economy back into balance so that once again we put the interests of the 99 percent of Americans who use financial products ahead of the 1 percent who profit from them.

I was deeply disappointed when our Republican colleagues voted against the Wall Street reform bill that should have been overwhelmingly a bipartisan bill. But now the bill is law, and guess what. My Republican friends are doing everything in their power to prevent it from doing its important job.

Earlier this year, 44 Republican Senators served notice that they would not confirm anyone--let me repeat, they would not confirm anyone--to the position of Director unless structural changes are made to the Bureau that would effectively take away its ability to stand up for consumers. The changes they have demanded are unfair and unreasonable. No other independent financial regulator has its rules subject to veto by other regulatory agencies. To suggest that the only regulator with a primary mission to protect everyday hard-working Americans should face unprecedented levels of oversight simply does not make sense. Once again, the Republicans have brazenly put the interests of Wall Street, payday lenders, and unscrupulous mortgage lenders ahead of the interests of Main Street consumers.

To restore the American economy to its place, we need a financial system that works for them. This means a financial system where consumers choose services based on a full and transparent understanding of the costs of those services. But absent a Director, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau won't be able to supervise payday lenders, debt collectors, or private student lenders. They won't be able to make it easier for the good actors in the financial system--our community banks, for example, or our credit unions--to compete against those who are making a large profit by unfairly taking advantage of unsuspecting consumers.

Richard Cordray is a superb choice to serve as the first Director of this Bureau. As attorney general of Ohio, he was a strong and fair advocate for consumers. His work has earned him the endorsement of bankers, CEOs, and civil rights leaders across the State of Ohio. He is a public servant of the highest caliber who deserves to be given the opportunity to lead this critically important Bureau.

As a matter of fundamental fairness to hard-working Americans on Main Street, we need an effective, evenhanded Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Mr. Cordray deserves the opportunity to lead this new Bureau.

I call upon my Republican colleagues, at long last, to put the interests of consumers ahead of the interests of those whose reckless pursuit of profits and bonuses have caused so much harm to our society and economy. I call upon my Republican colleagues to ignore the legions of Wall Street lobbyists who are urging them to disable and, if possible, kill the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Richard Cordray is a dedicated and impartial public servant who will put the best interests of American consumers first. We should give him that opportunity. I hope my colleagues will join me in strongly supporting his nomination.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in executive session on Wednesday, December 14, 2011, at 10 a.m. in SD-430 to mark up the following:

S. 1855, the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act

Reauthorization of 2011;

Wendy Spencer, to be Chief Executive Office of the

Corporation for National and Community Service;

Deepa Gupta, to be a member of the National Council on the

Arts;

Christopher Merrill, to be a member of the National Council

on the Humanities;

Stephanie Orlando, to be a member of the National Council

on Disability;

Gary Blumenthal, to be a member of the National Council on

Disability; and

en bloc, one hundred and seventy-eight nominations to the

Public Health Service.

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact the committee on (202) 224-5375.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ashley Stevens and Anna Esten of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's proceedings.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise about the most important job that faces the Senate in the remainder of the year; that is, extending the unemployment benefits for millions of unemployed Americans struggling to find a job.

I wish I didn't have to be down here talking about this today. I wish it weren't necessary to debate whether we should continue the Federal unemployment insurance program. I wish everyone in this Chamber would acknowledge that the recovery is still a work in progress and that we would agree about the critical need to continue to support struggling workers and their families. We have never failed to extend benefits in the past when unemployment was this high. But, unfortunately, in today's hyperpartisan atmosphere, even the most commonsense policies can turn into political footballs, and the unemployment insurance program seems to be no exception.

The extreme right is on the attack, blaming the victims who have been the hardest hit by this economic crisis. In the same breath that they push for more cuts in corporate taxes and cuts in taxes to high-income individuals, Republican leaders argue we can't afford to extend unemployment benefits for people who are struggling to find a job. Congresswoman Bachmann, a candidate for President, recently went so far to say: ``If anyone will not work, neither should he eat.''

In an economy where there are four unemployed workers for every available job, the cruelty of that comment is simply astonishing. There are 13 million unemployed Americans right now. Actually, I think the figure is probably a little bit higher than that. They are desperately looking for any job they can find, many relying on unemployment benefits to put food on the table for their children.

Six million Americans will be cut off this last lifeline if Congress does not renew the benefits for the long-term unemployed--6 million who will be cut off right after the holiday season. I hope no one in this body on either side of the aisle will say they deserve this additional hardship during this holiday season.

There are real people and real families behind these numbers. They are our friends and neighbors. I have heard from so many of these hard- working people from my home State of Iowa and across the country. Their stories are truly heartbreaking.

A woman from Des Moines recently wrote me:

I was laid off in July 2011. I recently attended a class at

the unemployment office in Des Moines, where I was informed

that my unemployment will cease as of December the 31st if

any extensions that are currently in place are discontinued.

The average person is currently unemployed for 40 weeks,

which is much longer than the 26 weeks that is available

[without] any extensions. I was the main breadwinner in our

family and if my unemployment would cease before I find a

job, we would forced to be on welfare, food stamps, and other

government subsidies. We would also lose our home. I hope

that you consider the many other people that are probably in

the same situation as I am and hope that you will keep the

current extensions in place.

A woman from Stanton, IA, writes:

I lost a great job in June of 2010 and have been receiving

unemployment benefits since then. . . . If not for the

unemployment [benefits], I don't know how we would make it. I

continue to look for a better paying job but as you probably

know, Montgomery County, Iowa has had the highest

unemployment rate in Iowa. It's been tough. . . . Will

appreciate your support in extending unemployment benefits as

I continue my quest for a new position.

The main reason folks need their benefits to continue is they simply

cannot find new work, even after exhausting their benefits. There are simply not enough jobs in this struggling economy. How can we even think about abruptly terminating these benefits right now, cutting off the last lifeline to Americans in dire need?

A man from Estherville, IA, wrote:

I woke up last week to find my benefits exhausted but no

closer to finding a job. I do everything possible to find

work but nothing materializes. Age-discrimination is rampant

and there is nothing an individual can do about it. . . .

Right now, after working since I was 12 years old, I'm facing

hunger and hopelessness at 57 years of age.

A man from West Des Moines wrote:

I'm a home designer/architect and have been laid off three

times since 2007, after working almost 16 years at one firm.

I have now decided to go back to school to try to find a

different career in information technology. I hate not having

a job, and want to work but there's just not anything out

there in architecture. Everyone seems to have circled the

wagons and are not hiring. Please help.

A woman from Madrid, IA, writes:

I lost my job (of 32 years) 2\1/2\ years ago. I lived off

my severance for the first year. Then savings and then went

on unemployment. Now my unemployment has run out. I have had

a few interview[s] without any luck. I have been working part

time for minimum wage and I only get 15 hours a week in. It's

the only job that I could find.

This is just a sampling of the letters we get in our office. But it is clear people want to work. They desperately want to work.

Later this week, the committee I chair, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, will hold a hearing to look at the reasons so many millions of workers who want to work are unable to get back to new jobs quickly. We will hear from experts, workers, and community leaders about the barriers facing the long-term unemployed, especially those over the age of 50.

But there are some things we don't need an expert to tell us. We know people can't find new jobs because there are so few jobs out there. As I said, right now, more than 13 million people are officially counted as actively looking for work. But that is an understatement. There are millions more people with part-time jobs, of necessity, who want full- time work, millions more on top of that who have basically stopped looking for work because they think a job search will be fruitless. They have already tried time and time again and they have given up. But if they had a job, if they got a job, they would take it.

When we add up all that, with a number of young people who have not entered the workforce--maybe they have looked for work, they can't find it, they are young, and especially if they are young and African American, the unemployment rate soars to 30 to 40 percent. They can't find a job. If we add that all up, we are talking about nearly 28 million unemployed and marginally employed people in America.

There are many other barriers to reemployment. I have talked about older workers. Not only have many of them gone through their retirement savings, many have lost their home that they spent decades paying a mortgage on, they have been unable to send their kids to college, and on top of that, they face the indignity of being passed over in favor of younger workers simply because of their age.

Again, it is not to say that younger workers have an easy time. I have also many stories of young people, many with college degrees, who can't find work. They are piecing together a meager existence on part- time service jobs that waste the time, effort, and money they have poured into an expensive education. I can't tell you how many young people I have talked to who have a college degree, they are not working in their chosen profession, but they are working at mostly part-time work or at service-oriented jobs that they know will not last them a lifetime, and service-oriented jobs that pay them a pittance compared to what they should be earning with their college degree. Still other workers hear they cannot be considered by employers because they have been unemployed for too long. This is so, even when a recruiter tells them they are perfectly well qualified for the job.

More workers want to move in order to take advantage of a new opportunity they have heard about elsewhere but, guess what, their house is underwater. Not physically. That means they owe more on their mortgage than the house is worth and they cannot sell it. Or they have been out of work so long they have no money left to even afford to move. They cannot even afford to pack up the U-Haul and move someplace.

Still other workers have trouble with transportation or childcare or other day-to-day issues that make it much harder to get an employer to take a chance on them. Someone came up and said to me one time: You know, for people who do not get a job, there are places in this country where there are jobs. They can move. It is a free country.

I said: What about a single mother who has two kids and she relies upon her mother as a babysitter, as a childcare person to take care of the kids when she is out working on a minimum wage job, maybe part time? How is she going to pack up and move those kids when she has, frankly, free help from her mother? These are real barriers that real people face every day of their lives.

These problems illustrate why the long-term unemployed who are working hard and playing by the rules still cannot get a job because of the factors beyond their control. Rather than chastising the victims, we should be giving a hand up to people in their hour of greatest need and help them to get back into the workforce.

This support is critical, not only for the workers and families affected but for our economy overall. Research shows that for every dollar of unemployed benefits that is spent, we generate $2 in economic activity. Why is that? Because this money is not saved, it is not put into a shoe box, it is spent on essentials, helping businesses up and down Main Street in communities across the country. In addition, if unemployment benefits are extended, we will save about 560,000 jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

By contrast, if we fail to renew these benefits, our economy will be deprived of many billions of dollars of economic activity next year. In the end, this will have a negative impact on overall gross domestic product. On the one hand, with benefits we boost our economy with a potent return on investment, we help people in their hour of need, and we meet our moral obligations as a society. But without benefits, we hurt our economy by shrinking consumer demand, by destroying jobs, and we do not meet our moral obligation as a caring government and a caring people.

There is a strong economic case for renewing unemployment insurance, but I also say there is a strong human case for extending the benefits. Where is our basic human compassion? The thought of letting these benefits expire is unconscionable, especially during this Christmas season. After looking for work for at least 6 months but often more, many of these people already have lost their jobs, their homes, their savings, and they are now at risk of losing their last lifeline, the roughly $300 a week they receive in unemployment benefits.

The bills do not stop coming when someone loses his or her job. The rent or mortgage, the electricity, car payments--all have to be made. The family still has to buy food, gasoline, medicine, school supplies, clothes. Unemployment benefits are a lifeline for the millions of folks who are living without an income and trying to survive. These benefits kept more than 3 million people from falling into poverty last year.

We have a moral obligation, those of us privileged to serve in the Senate and the House, to continue the Federal unemployment insurance programs while the economy continues to slowly recover. We cannot allow these benefits to expire. We cannot allow millions of our friends, neighbors, and relatives to sink into absolute poverty and desperation. We cannot fail to take action because that failure will result in families being put out on the street, children going to bed hungry, families left to shiver in the cold of their unheated homes.

I urge my colleagues to vote on this matter as soon as possible. During this holiday season, it is cruel to put millions of unemployed Americans in the position of wondering how they are going to survive come January 1 of next year. Let us renew these benefits for another year. Let us spend the next year doing everything we can to rebuild our economy, create jobs, and

provide employment to everyone who wants to work in this great Nation.

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

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Subcommittee on Children and Families of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in open session on Tuesday, December 13, 2011, at 10:15 a.m. in SD-106 to conduct a hearing entitled ``Breaking the Silence on Child Abuse: Protection, Prevention, Intervention, and Deterrence.''

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact the subcommittee staff on (202) 224-9243.