Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in open session on Tuesday, November 8, 2011, at 10 a.m. in SD-106 to conduct a hearing entitled ``Beyond NCLB: Views on the Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization Act.''

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact the committee staff on (202) 224-5501.

Mr. President, throughout the decades since the Packers and Stockyards Act was enacted in 1921, livestock and poultry producers and growers have depended upon the U.S. Department of Agriculture to enforce basic rules of honest dealing, fairness, and nondiscriminatory treatment when livestock and poultry growers and producers engage in sales and contractual transactions with meat and poultry packers, processors, and dealers.

The underlying justification for the Packers and Stockyards Act, and the regulations that have been issued to carry it out, is basic and straightforward. There is inherently a substantial inequality in bargaining power and economic leverage between the individual producer or grower of hogs, or cattle, or poultry, on the one hand, and the packing or processing company on the other hand. That is not to accuse or disparage the packers and processors, but simply to recognize the inherent disparities in economic power in the real world. It is accordingly only reasonable to have some basic Federal rules of the road, so to speak, because livestock and poultry production and processing is a national industry of huge importance to our country and its economy.

For many years we have heard repeated testimony before Congress that the Packers and Stockyards Act is not being carried out by the Department of Agriculture, specifically by the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, in a manner that fully and effectively lives up to the language of the statute, its intent, and purposes. For that reason, in crafting the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, as chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, I was proud to work with my colleagues in the committee and with our counterparts in the House of Representatives to include language directing the Secretary of Agriculture to issue new regulations under the Packers and Stockyards Act that would clarify criteria and interpretations for carrying out and enforcing the act. These new regulations are required to establish criteria that the Department of Agriculture will use in determining whether the actions of a packer or processor constitute an undue or unreasonable preference or advantage for one or more producers or growers to the disadvantage of others, in violation of the act; whether a live poultry dealer has provided reasonable notice for suspending the delivery of birds to a grower under a poultry growing contract; under what circumstances it would be an unfair practice in violation of the act for a packer or processor to require a swine or poultry grower to make additional capital investments during the life of a contractual arrangement; and whether a live poultry dealer or swine contractor has provided a reasonable period of time for a swine or poultry contract grower to remedy a breach or failure to perform in order to avoid termination of the contract.

In accordance with the farm bill, the Department of Agriculture issued a proposed rule on June 22, 2010, and kept the public comment period open until November 22, 2010. Some 61,000 comments were submitted, which the department has been reviewing and responding to in the process of developing a final rule. The proposed rule is not perfect, of course. That is why there is a public comment process so that anyone who is interested can comment and make recommendations. Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack has made it very clear that the comments were being carefully reviewed so that the proposed rule can be appropriately modified and improved in response to the comments.

Contrary to some of the arguments that are being made, the topics and subject matter covered in the proposed rule, and which therefore likely would be encompassed in the final rule, are entirely consistent with the rulemaking process that the 2008 farm bill directed the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct and with the authority provided by the Packers and Stockyards Act. It is not at all correct to assert that the Department of Agriculture has exceeded its authority or in some manner or contradicted the farm bill's directive to issue regulations on specified matter.

It is true the proposed rule would do more to interpret and clarify terms in the Packers and Stockyards Act than is specifically required in the farm bill. Most important, the proposed rule would clarify what many believe to be a misinterpretation of the act by some courts that have held that an individual grower or producer cannot succeed on a claim for harm suffered from a violation of the act without an additional showing of harm to competition in the broader market. The effect of these holdings is effectively to deny relief to independent producers and growers for harm caused by unjust, discriminatory, or unfair practices, which are clearly in violation of the act's protections, unless they can show the broader injury to competition. That showing of injury to competition in the broader market is usually very hard or impossible to make. What is lost in these decisions is that the Packers and Stockyards Act was written and intended to provide protection to individual producers and growers against harm from unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practices and similar actions by packers, processors, and dealers. The act was not written or intended to require that harm to competition in the broader market must be shown in order to establish a violation.

The Department of Agriculture clearly has the authority to issue regulations to clarify interpretations of the Packers and Stockyards Act in order to ensure that it is properly carried out. This authority of a department or agency to issue regulations that will clarify the interpretation of a statute within its purview is fully supported by basic principles of administrative law established in the decisions of the Supreme Court and other Federal courts. Claims that in some way the proposed rule exceeds the authority of the Department of Agriculture are plainly unfounded.

As for the details of the proposed rule, it is not designed or intended to put an end to systems in which packers pay premiums for higher quality or distinctive livestock, for example, ``Certified Angus'' beef, or assess a discount if animals fail to meet standards. The proposed rule is quite clear that it is not designed to prohibit premiums and price differentials that are based on the quality of the livestock or poultry or similar features or circumstances. Because there is a valid economic justification for quality-based premiums and discounts, they are not prohibited by the Packers and Stockyards Act. Accordingly, the proposed rule is clear that such quality-based premiums or discounts are entirely valid and won't be prohibited or jeopardized by the final rule. It just stands to reason, that since there is now obviously economic justification and reward to packers as well as producers for these systems of quality-based premiums and discounts, there will still be incentives and motivation to keep them in place after the final rule is issued.

Finally, regarding the claims that the proposed rule will be very costly and eliminate jobs, the short answer is that these studies, as I understand them, are founded on basic misreading and mischaracterization of the terms and intent of the proposed rule and upon misguided and exaggerated predictions of the effects of carrying it out. They are undoubtedly very extreme predictions of the effects of a rule that is designed and intended, fundamentally, to do no more than simply to ensure fair and nondiscriminatory treatment of livestock and poultry producers and growers in the market.

This rule is vitally important to producers and growers across our country. We should not in legislation prevent the Department of Agriculture from going ahead to make improvements and modifications and issue a final rule that is greatly needed to enhance the effectiveness of the Packers and Stockyards Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 19, 2011, in Dirksen Room 106, for the consideration of a bill to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Mr. President, I am sorry the Senator from Kentucky is objecting to our meeting.

I say to my friend from Kentucky, the one thing I believe both Senator Enzi and I did and other members of our committee on both sides of the aisle did to get this bill to where it is was to put aside ideology--to put aside ideology--to do what is best for our kids.

I believe the HELP Committee--on both sides of the aisle, Senator Enzi and I on both sides--has done everything possible to move the bill in a considerate, logical legislative manner. We started on this last year. I say to my friend from Kentucky, we had 10 hearings last year-- 10 good, long hearings. We had superintendents. We had teachers. We had principals. We had broad input from across America as to what they wanted in a reauthorization bill. I am sorry the Senator was not here last year, but the Senate is a continuing body. Does that mean every 2 years we have to start all over from scratch every time? So we had all our hearings last year. And that was cleared again with Senator Enzi and me. We talked about: Well, lets get the hearings out of the road, and this year we could focus on putting the bill together. So we had our hearings. I say to my friend, we brought in teachers, principals, superintendents from all over America.

Then, starting in January, we began a time-honored process whereby the chair and ranking member started working on putting the bill together with our professional staff. That is why we have professional staff. Senator Alexander was involved in that. Other Senators were brought in--Senator Bennet, Senator Franken. Others on the Republican side were brought in on that.

I would say this: The Senator from Kentucky had every day since he was sworn in in January to come to me or go to Senator Enzi and say: I am on the committee. Here is what I would like in the bill. And that would have been considered. Other Senators did that. I see two of them sitting here right now who came and said: Here is what I would like to have in the bill.

Well, I sat down with Senator Enzi. We discussed it. Some yes, some no, some modifications--we would work it out through the process as we went through. I do not know if the Senator from Kentucky went to see Senator Enzi about what he wanted in the bill. I know he did not come see me. Our doors are open. There was no secret that we were meeting about this. We started in January. Everybody on our committee, the staffs, all knew that.

That is the legislative process. When it was all done, we wanted to put together a bipartisan bill. That is what we did. I say to my friend from Kentucky, it was not filed 48 hours ago; it was filed a week ago yesterday, Tuesday. That bill was filed. It was put online. I put that bill online. So we had a whole week to look at it, and, quite frankly, what happened is we got feedback. I say to my friend, we put the bill online. We got feedback from a lot of people--the community out there-- and as a result of that, we made some final changes. That is the legislative process. Senator Enzi and I worked together on a managers' amendment to incorporate some of the objections that came in during the week to make the bill even more bipartisan. We filed that managers' amendment on Monday morning at 10 o'clock. But that was not the whole bill. I put the whole bill online a week ago Tuesday. It was just the managers' amendment that was, again, a fine-tuning of it before we met in markup.

So I say the Senator from Kentucky had every opportunity to let us know what he wanted in that bill, and I never saw him. I never saw him. He never came to me. I am on the floor all the time. My door is open. My staff is available. My professional staff is available. If the Senator from Kentucky had something he wanted in the bill and it was not included, he has the right to offer an amendment.

I wanted this committee to operate in an open manner--in a manner in which we have operated in the past legislatively. If the Senator did not have something in the bill that he wanted in, he has the right to offer an amendment and to debate it and to get a vote on it in our committee.

The Senator has filed 74 amendments. We had 144 amendments filed. Under our rules, they had to be filed 48 hours before. The Senator from Kentucky filed 74 amendments. Well, now the Senator from Kentucky is objecting to our even meeting to consider his own amendments. Please, someone, explain the logic of that to the Senator from Iowa. He has the amendments. The process is open. He can offer amendments, get them debated, get them voted on. But the Senator from Kentucky is objecting to us meeting in order to even consider his amendments.

Secondly, I heard the Senator again on the floor today--and earlier, when we met earlier this morning in committee to start our process of marking up the bill--he said he wanted to do away with No Child Left Behind. That is exactly what this bill does. It gets rid of No Child Left Behind and some of the narrow proscriptions and prescriptions in the bill and does, in fact, return a lot to local control. And we build a partnership with the Federal Government and State and local governments--a better partnership than what we have had in the past. I think that is why we have a good, bipartisan bill.

Again, the Senator from Kentucky and I probably have different views on this. I understand that. That is why we have the Senate. That is why we have debates. That is why we have committee meetings and markups. If I were writing the bill, I would write a completely different bill than the Senator from Kentucky would write. He would write one completely different from mine. That is why we meet in committees. That is why we hammer these things out over a long process. You do not just shut the door and say: It is my way or no way.

I am the chairman. I am willing to listen to his amendments and have him offer them. But how can I hear his amendments, how can we consider his amendments if the Senator will not even allow us to meet under the rules of the Senate? I have no logical explanation for that.

Well, there is a lot more I could say, Mr. President, but this is just illogical. That is all I can say: It is just illogical.

I see the Senator from Colorado on his feet. I yield to the Senator from Colorado for any questions he might have.

I believe I have the floor.

Again, I want--I recognize the Senator wants to speak. Let's do this in a logical, orderly manner. If people want to be here to speak, I think the Senator from Colorado made some good points. I was yielding to him for a question. I would yield if the Senator from Minnesota has a question. Then, obviously, the Senator from Kentucky will have every right to speak.

I yield to the Senator from Minnesota for a question.

It started at least a year and a half ago, maybe a year and three-quarters.

I say to my friend from Minnesota, I think that is right. If the Senator wants to be engaged in the process of legislation, then, as I say, the Senator from Minnesota has talked to me many times about what he wants in the bill. The Senator from Colorado and even Members on the Republican side have talked to me about what should be in the bill, what should not be in the bill. That is the process.

I would say to my friend from Minnesota, I have been chairman twice before, not of this committee but of the Agriculture Committee when we did major agricultural bills. One was in 2001 and the other one was in 2007, and

both times I worked with the ranking members, basically, the same kind of process. We got bipartisan bills through that were signed by President Bush both times, 2001 and in 2007. This was the process we used.

We let amendments be offered. We opened it up. No one on the committee ever raised an objection to our meeting during the Senate session. We got our jobs done. That is the way we have always done it. That is just the legislative--as I said, considerate, logical legislative process. That is the way we have always conducted it. What it does is it allows Members--Senators who are interested, as the Senator from Minnesota has been so keenly interested in this Education bill, to give them time to go to the ranking member, to go to me, to go to other Members, to see what they can get in the bill.

I say to my friend from Minnesota, I am sure we did not put in everything the Senator wanted in the bill.

But I think the Senator has the right to offer the amendments in committee.

I did not know if the Senator from Kentucky wanted me to yield to him for a question to get involved in the colloquy or the Senator from North Carolina.

I will yield the floor very soon. I say to my friend from Kentucky, I will say again: We put this bill online 1 week ago Tuesday. Some of the mail the Senator is talking about, the letters came in after that because they read the bill. I think the primary objections on all those letters had to do with teacher evaluations and what we were going to do in the bill on teacher evaluations.

That is what we fixed in the managers' amendment that we laid down Monday morning. I am told--I have not seen it--but I am told the National Education Association, for example, has withdrawn from that letter because of the fix we made. That is why we put the bill online.

I said that earlier. We put it online. A lot of objections came in. We modified it in the managers' amendment to move forward on that bill. That is exactly how we do it. I say to my friend from Kentucky that we have had a whole week.

Again, my friend filed 74 amendments to the bill. How can you file 74 amendments if you haven't read the bill? It seems to me that if you file 74 amendments, you must have read the bill. I assume that last week the Senator must have read the bill and then filed 74 amendments. You cannot have it both ways--say I haven't read the bill, but here are 74 amendments. That doesn't hold together logically.

Again, I will close on this note. The Senator from Colorado is absolutely right. We are here talking about process and who is up, who is down, all of this kind of stuff. These teachers out in America who are grappling with kids who are under this burden of No Child Left Behind and these AYPs, knowing that no matter how much they progress their kids in 1 year, they are still failing--this bill relieves them of that, takes that yoke off them.

Every one of us has heard from teachers, parents, and administrators that this No Child Left Behind is not good, that it has to be fixed, and that is what our bill does. How are we going to change it and fix it if we are not even allowed to meet?

Again, I hope the Senator from Kentucky will allow us to move forward in this process and allow us to have our amendment process. I say to my friend he has another shot at this bill on the floor. We will have committee, and we will come to the floor, and amendments will be offered on the floor. That is the legislative process. No one person gets to dictate what is in this bill--not me, not Senator Enzi, not the Senator from Kentucky. But all working together collaboratively in a bipartisan fashion, I think we can move this bill forward.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have said on a number of occasions that trade is an incredibly important part of our economy, especially in my home State of Iowa. For this reason, I am a longtime supporter of policies designed to open foreign markets to our Nation's exports through new trade agreements. I have fought to break down the barriers that many other countries have erected to block our exports, and I have sought to reduce the practices by which many of them seek to compete unfairly in world markets.

However, trade is more than just the shipment of goods and services across borders. Trade policy and the impacts of trade also have wide ranging consequences for workers and the environment inside the trading countries. Properly designed, our trade policy can expand opportunities and promote the welfare of workers in both the United States and abroad. Ill-designed trade policy can have the opposite effect as well.

For this reason, I have to express my strong opposition to the free trade agreement with Colombia. Simply put, Colombia is one of the most dangerous countries in the world to be a trade unionist. According to Colombia's National Labor School, ENS, in the last 25 years, over 2,800 Colombian trade unionists have been killed. According to the AFL-CIO, 23 trade unionists have been assassinated this year alone in Colombia, including 16 since the conclusion of the labor action plan, which I will speak more about later. The ENS also reports that over the last 10 years, Colombian trade unionists have faced almost 4,000 death threats.

While some improvements have been made in recent years, the Colombian government has not sought to hold those responsible for these brutal crimes. According to the International Labor Organization's, ILO, High- level Tripartite Mission to Colombia, ``the majority of trade unionist killings have not yet been investigated nor have the perpetrators, including the intellectual authors of these crimes, been brought to justice.'' ENS data indicates that since 1986, only 6 percent of the cases brought to trial have resulted in any convictions.

The current Colombian government led by President Santos has made some progress. I believe that the Colombian action plan related to labor rights that the Obama administration negotiated with the Santos administration is a step in the right direction. If the changes that the Santos administration have begun making are continued, and the labor action plan is fully implemented and enforced, Colombia will have made significant progress to addressing many of my concerns.

But given all that I have described earlier, it would be irresponsible of us to rush into a free trade agreement before we see the results of this endeavor. Unfortunately, while the labor action plan requires the Colombian government to issue new laws, regulations, and reports, there is no mechanism to ensure that these policies will be effective at improving the living and working conditions of Colombians. The only follow-up mechanism included in the labor action plan is a series of meetings to take place in 2012 and 2013. After 2013, those meetings may cease to occur.

Even more, should Colombia not meet its obligations under the labor action plan or take future action that is contrary to the labor action plan, only some portions may be subject to the binding dispute settlement procedures in the text of the agreement. The limited enforceability of the action plan further cautions against moving forward too hastily, as we will not have enough leverage to ensure that fundamental labor rights are respected once the agreement is implemented. As my colleagues may remember, the side agreement to the North American Free Trade Agreement is ultimately meaningless and unenforceable.

One of the goals of our trade policy must be to further the internationally recognized right of workers to organize. Supporting the rights of workers

to organize freely, bargain collectively, and live safely is not just good for workers abroad, but it helps workers in the United States as well.

The United States simply cannot compete in a global race to the bottom when it comes to labor standards. Our workers are some of the most highly skilled and productive workers in the world. But they simply cannot compete against countries that make things more cheaply because they don't respect the rights of their workers, have safe workplaces, or pay their workers a living wage. Unfortunately, this agreement will not help us further that goal.

I would like to raise a second significant concern I have about the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. As many of my colleagues know, I have been working on reducing abusive and exploitative child labor around the world for nearly two decades. I first introduced a bill on this issue in 1992. According to the best estimates by the International Labor Organization, ILO, there are 215 million child laborers between the ages of 5 and 17 who are engaged in today's global economy.

Of these 215 million child laborers, 115 million are engaged in hazardous work. These 115 million powerless children are working in mines, in fishing operations and on coffee plantations. It is appalling that this is still occurring in the 21st century. These children are robbed of their childhoods. Many are denied an education and any hope for a brighter future. They will grow up illiterate and exploited, creating a wellspring of future social conflict and strife.

We have made some progress over the years by funding programs for the remediation of child laborers through our contribution to the ILO's International Program for the Elimination of Child Labor, IPEC. In 2000, I successfully amended the Trade and Development Act with a provision directing that no trade benefits under the Generalized System of Preferences, GSP, be granted to any country that does not live up to its commitments to eliminate the worst forms of child labor. I required that the President submit a yearly report to Congress on the steps being taken by each GSP beneficiary country to carry out its commitments to end abusive and exploitative child labor.

I want to explain clearly to my colleagues what I mean when I refer to abusive and exploitative child labor. It is not children who work part-time after school or on weekends. There is nothing wrong with that. That is not the issue. What I am referring to is the definition set out by ILO Convention 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labor. This is not just a Western, or a developed-world, standard. It is a global standard that has been ratified by 174 countries. It has been ratified by Colombia. The United States was the third country in the world to ratify this convention.

Unfortunately, the Department of Labor's Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor that was released this month, states up front that Colombia, ``has not provided adequate resources to the National Strategy to Eradicate the Worst Forms of Child Labor. Children continue to work in agriculture, including forced coca cultivation, and in mining.'' The report further finds that children are forced to work in domestic service, are sexually exploited, transport illegal drugs, and even are used by armed militants as child soldiers.

In addition to these shocking practices, eight Colombian products appear in the 2011 List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor, also released by DOL this month. These products include coffee, sugarcane, and gold.

Unfortunately, the implementing legislation now before the Senate for free trade with Colombia actually would take us, and the world, a step backward when it comes to protecting children. That is right. This free trade agreement with Colombia, which replaces GSP provisions in governing trade between our two countries, will take us backward with respect to abusive and exploitative child labor.

Under GSP, the President now must report to Congress annually regarding Colombia's child labor practices, and if Colombia is not meeting the obligations that it undertook as a signatory to the ILO Convention, if Colombia is not acting to eliminate the worst forms of child labor, then trade sanctions are available to us to require enforcement of internationally recognized standards. That is so that our companies, and our workers, are not subjected to the unfair competition that abusive labor practices allow. Under this new implementing legislation for free trade with Colombia, on the other hand, if it is enacted, neither of those things I just mentioned will be true.

Our trade negotiators should not be weakening protections that we in Congress put in place to ensure that free trade can be consistent with respect for international child labor standards. Supporting abusive and exploitative child labor abroad does not help create jobs in America. Just the opposite, it hurts that effort. Our workers and our local businesses should not be competing with the worst forms of child labor abroad.

As a result, I strongly believe that we need to put the break on this flawed trade agreement. It is time for us to begin passing fair trade agreements that promote good quality jobs both here and abroad and work to end the worst forms of child labor. This agreement does not meet that test.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in open session on Tuesday, October 18, 2011, at 10 a.m. in SD-430 to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Recession and Older Americans: Where Do We Go From Here?''

For further information regarding this hearing please contact Ashley Carson-Cottingham of the subcommittee staff on (202) 224-5480.

Mr. President, I am delighted to introduce this bill today. This legislation will play a critical role in ensuring the safety of our Nation's youth who especially deserve to be safe and cared for when they are trying to get better in a residential treatment facility. This bill is a companion to The Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act, which was introduced in the House today by Representative George Miller. I commend Representative Miller for his commitment to this important issue.

The emotional and mental well-being of our Nation's youth is of paramount importance. In recent years, the prevalence of child abuse in residential facilities has jeopardized the livelihood of our nation's next generation. In 2005, The Government Accountability Office reported over 1,500 incidences of abuse and neglect by facility staff in 34 States. These incidences included shocking cases in which youth were denied food and water or held in stress positions for extended periods of time. In 2006, 28 States reported at least one death in a residential facility. This includes my State of Iowa and this is simply unacceptable. These deaths were a result of accidents or suicides that, in some instances, may have been caused by a lack of supervision or neglect. In 2009, 1,770 children and youth died from maltreatment, which in some cases, may be attributed to the inexperienced staff members who lack the proper training or qualifications to serve in their roles.

This legislation will make significant strides in improving the quality of care in residential program facilities. This bill will make improvements in four key areas that will ensure that our children and youth our safe. First, it includes new national standards that will prevent residential facilities from physically, mentally, or sexually abusing children in their care. Second, this bill increases transparency on qualifications, roles, and responsibilities of all current staff members. Third, it increases restrictions that will hold residential programs accountable for violating the law. Lastly, this bill allows states the opportunity to step in to protect teens in residential programs.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge the youth who have lost their lives while in the care of a residential treatment facility and their parents and families. No child should be forced to suffer abuse, neglect, injury, or even death while they are trying to better themselves in a residential program.

I would also like to mention those who have worked so hard on my staff. I would like to thank Dan Smith and Pam Smith, who do a great job shepherding the undertakings of our committee. I would like to thank Bethany Little, David Johns, Ashley Eden and Michael Gamel- McCormick of my staff. This is a critical step forward to making sure that we ensure the safety of America's youth.

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

Mr. President, I am delighted to introduce this bill today. This legislation will play a critical role in ensuring the safety of our Nation's youth who especially deserve to be safe and cared for when they are trying to get better in a residential treatment facility. This bill is a companion to The Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act, which was introduced in the House today by Representative George Miller. I commend Representative Miller for his commitment to this important issue.

The emotional and mental well-being of our Nation's youth is of paramount importance. In recent years, the prevalence of child abuse in residential facilities has jeopardized the livelihood of our nation's next generation. In 2005, The Government Accountability Office reported over 1,500 incidences of abuse and neglect by facility staff in 34 States. These incidences included shocking cases in which youth were denied food and water or held in stress positions for extended periods of time. In 2006, 28 States reported at least one death in a residential facility. This includes my State of Iowa and this is simply unacceptable. These deaths were a result of accidents or suicides that, in some instances, may have been caused by a lack of supervision or neglect. In 2009, 1,770 children and youth died from maltreatment, which in some cases, may be attributed to the inexperienced staff members who lack the proper training or qualifications to serve in their roles.

This legislation will make significant strides in improving the quality of care in residential program facilities. This bill will make improvements in four key areas that will ensure that our children and youth our safe. First, it includes new national standards that will prevent residential facilities from physically, mentally, or sexually abusing children in their care. Second, this bill increases transparency on qualifications, roles, and responsibilities of all current staff members. Third, it increases restrictions that will hold residential programs accountable for violating the law. Lastly, this bill allows states the opportunity to step in to protect teens in residential programs.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge the youth who have lost their lives while in the care of a residential treatment facility and their parents and families. No child should be forced to suffer abuse, neglect, injury, or even death while they are trying to better themselves in a residential program.

I would also like to mention those who have worked so hard on my staff. I would like to thank Dan Smith and Pam Smith, who do a great job shepherding the undertakings of our committee. I would like to thank Bethany Little, David Johns, Ashley Eden and Michael Gamel- McCormick of my staff. This is a critical step forward to making sure that we ensure the safety of America's youth.

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

Mr. President, the so-called supercommittee created by the Budget Control Act has begun their work. It is mandated to produce a plan by November 23 that will reduce future deficits by at least $1.5 trillion. As chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I have been invited to submit recommendations to the supercommittee, and I will do so in the days ahead.

Certainly, I wish this group well. However, it is critically important we define success in terms that matter to working Americans. Frankly, I am deeply disturbed by the Washington groupthink that defines success narrowly in terms of maximizing deficit reduction. I have come to the floor to urge members of the supercommittee to embrace a broader and more powerful definition of success. Success must include boosting the economy and creating jobs.

After all, the most effective way to reduce the deficit is to help 25 million unemployed and underemployed Americans find jobs and become taxpayers once again. There can be no sustained deficit reduction without a recovery of the economy and a return to normal levels of employment. Indeed, just yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office released an analysis showing that if our economy were not in recession--if our economy were not in recession--if it were employing labor and capital at normal levels, the deficit would be reduced next year by an estimated $343 billion--a reduction of one-third of the deficit in 1 year if we just had normal employment.

So I have a simple but urgent message to the supercommittee: Go big on jobs. That message would be strongly seconded by people such as Connie Smith of Tama, IA. In January, she was laid off after working 27 years for the same telecom company. Since being laid off, she has been working as a contractor doing the same type of work for less pay and no benefits.

Jean Whitt would also agree. She was laid off in 2008 and is now a student at Iowa Western Community College, striving for a new career in nursing. She is hoping good jobs will be available when she graduates.

As I said, inside the Washington bubble, our leaders have persuaded themselves that the No. 1 issue confronting America is the budget deficit. I assure everyone that ordinary Americans are focused on a far more urgent deficit: the jobs deficit.

But I am also concerned about a third deficit: the deficit of imagination and vision in Washington today. I am dismayed by our failure to confront the current economic crisis with the boldness earlier generations of Americans summoned in times of national challenge.

Let's be clear about the staggering scale of today's challenge. Our Nation remains mired in the most severe period of joblessness since the Great Depression. As I said, some 25 million Americans are desperate to find full-time employment. According to new data from the Census Bureau, the poverty rate has risen to 15 percent--the highest level in 18 years. Twenty percent of American children are being raised in poverty--one out of every five kids in America.

Last week, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Ben Bernanke, said unemployment is a ``national crisis.'' Very true, Mr. Bernanke. It is a national crisis. It is far and away the No. 1 concern of the American people. That is why an exclusive, single-minded obsession-- obsession--with slashing spending and reducing the deficit is not just misguided, it is counterproductive. If the supercommittee cuts the deficit by $1.5 trillion and does nothing to create jobs, this would amount to a massive dose of antistimulus. It will further drain demand from the economy and destroy even more jobs. That, in turn, will make the deficit worse, not better. It is the equivalent of applying leeches to a patient who needs a transfusion.

We must stop this mindless march to austerity. Smart countries, when they have these kinds of challenges, do not just turn a chainsaw on themselves. Instead of the current slash-and-burn approach, which is being sold through fear and fatalism, we need an approach that reflects the hopes and aspirations of the American people.

To be sure, we must agree on necessary spending cuts and tax increases. But we must continue to invest in what will spur economic growth, create jobs, and strengthen the middle class, knowing this is the only sustainable way to bring deficits under control.

Again, I say to the supercommittee: If you are serious about reducing the deficit, you must put job creation front and center in your deliberations and agenda, not just slashing and cutting government spending to reduce the deficit.

I do not want to be misunderstood. My preference, of course, is always to reduce the deficit. I know that. As a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, I appreciate that we must seize every opportunity to prudently--prudently--reduce Federal spending. There are opportunities, including in the Pentagon, to reduce Federal spending while minimizing further damage to the economy and jobs.

However, I believe we must be equally willing to say no--no--to foolish, destructive budget cuts. Most important, as I have said, the supercommittee must broaden its focus to include a sharp emphasis on creating jobs and boosting the economy.

That is why I was very pleased by the plan presented by President Obama: the American Jobs Act. As the President said in his speech to Congress, the American Jobs Act boils down to two things: putting people back to work and more money in the pockets of working Americans.

Most importantly, in my book, the American Jobs Act would dramatically ramp up investments in infrastructure

in order to boost U.S. competitiveness and directly create millions of new jobs.

Specifically, the American Jobs Act includes $30 billion to renovate some 35,000 schools and community colleges nationwide. This would create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, especially in the hard-hit construction industry.

The legislation--the President's bill--provides $30 billion to help local school districts hire and retain teachers. This new fund would save or create nearly 400,000 education jobs.

In addition, the American Jobs Act includes $50 billion for immediate investment in our transportation infrastructure. Again, this will dramatically boost employment, while modernizing the arteries and veins of our commerce.

Now people say: How are we going to pay for all this and these other investments, keeping our teachers in the classroom, renovating the infrastructure? How are we going to pay for all this to get our economy back on track?

For the answer, we again need to listen to the American people. I received a heartfelt message from Dan Carver, a fifth-grade teacher in Carlisle, IA. He says he is struggling similar to other middle-class Americans to pay his bills and his taxes and he does not understand why corporations and the very wealthy are not also paying their fair share.

In poll after poll after poll, by 2-to-1 margins--2-to-1 margins-- Americans want an approach that includes tax increases on those who can most afford it, those whose incomes have skyrocketed in recent years, even as middle-class incomes have fallen, those who have benefited the most from tax breaks initiated during the Bush administration. By a 2- to-1 margin--this should be a no-brainer for people elected to Congress. Read the polls. That is what people want done.

We see all those people up on Wall Street. It is now spreading to Washington. There is even an event planned for Mason City, IA, this weekend by a lot of young people, saying: Look, we have to raise revenue. We can't just slash and cut back and retreat. We need to raise revenue and charge forward.

We would be foolish to ignore the voices of working Americans from all walks of life. For more than a decade now, these good citizens have been told that tax breaks for the wealthy will result in millions of new jobs and a booming economy. That is what they have been told. They were told wealthy Americans are so-called job creators, and if we just shove enough tax breaks their way, jobs will magically bloom.

Frankly, this is the same old theory of trickle-down economics, and it manifestly has never worked. For ordinary Americans, the only things that have trickled down are wage cuts, mass unemployment, upside-down mortgages, personal bankruptcies, and disappearing pensions.

Instead of this failed trickle-down economics for the rich, it is time for percolate-up economics for middle-class Americans. We have a saying for this out in the Midwest, and I have heard it many times: You do not fertilize a tree from the top down. You have to put it in at the roots.

It is time to invest directly in jobs by renovating our crumbling infrastructure, rebuilding our schools, putting laid-off teachers back to work. By all means, it is time to ask those who have benefited the most from our economy to pay more--yes, to pay more--to help finance these urgent investments. Because these are the kinds of things individuals cannot do on their own. An individual cannot rebuild a highway or a school. An individual cannot retrofit a building. An individual cannot build new energy efficiency systems. But we can do this acting together. That is why it is time to ask those who have benefited the most from our economy to pay some more.

I close by reiterating that we need to pursue a path that, first and foremost, right now, focuses on job creation; in the longer term, focuses on deficit reduction. After we get the economy going and get people back to work and being taxpayers again, then we can reduce the deficit. As the report showed this week, if we were to just have normal employment levels, we would reduce the deficit by $343 billion.

So I say again to the supercommittee: Do not just focus on slashing, cutting, and retreating.

Focus on raising revenue and charging ahead, investing in education, innovation, infrastructure. It means a level playing field with fair taxation--fair taxation--and a strong ladder of opportunity to give every American access to the middle class. It is time to put America back to work. It is time to change the tenor of the debate. It is time to get away from this groupthink in Washington; that if only, if only we would just cut more government spending, somehow magically people will go back to work. It is not going to happen. Only in your dreams.

It will only happen if we are bold enough, as our forefathers and people before us were bold enough, to raise the necessary revenue to put this country back to work. That should be the first charge of this supercommittee.

I yield the floor.

Well, I thank the Senator very much. I thank the Senator from Ohio, a great friend and a great supporter of working Americans. I would just say that the bill that Senator Brown has been championing is now leading the charge on the China currency bill, and I think it is one of the important steps forward in making sure we start creating jobs for Americans.

How can we create jobs for Americans when we have a Chinese currency that is underpinning their exports to America, undercutting our jobs in this country? So this is a big step forward. I hope we can get cloture. I hope we can move forward on the bill. So I thank the Senator from Ohio for his steadfastness on making sure we got the bill to the floor, and I hope we get the votes to pass it.

Again, we can focus on the jobs in this country, but if we are just going to continue to allow China to undercut us in just every possible way through manipulating their currency so they can undercut us by 20 or 25 percent on a lot of goods that come into this country, how are we going to manufacture those things?

The Senator from Ohio clearly understands percolate-up economics. I appreciate that very much. I thank the Senator from Ohio for his leadership.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in open session on Tuesday, October 11, 2011, at 1 p.m. at the Kellogg Conference Center, Gallaudet University, 800 Florida Avenue, NE, Washington, DC, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Leveraging Higher Education to Improve Employment Outcomes for People Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing.''

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Andrew Imparato of the committee staff on (202) 228-3453.

committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in open session on Wednesday, October 12, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. in SD-430 to conduct a hearing entitled ``The State of Chronic Disease Prevention.''

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Craig Martinez of the committee staff on (202) 224-7675.

committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in executive session on Tuesday, October 18, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. in SD-106 to mark up a bill that would reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; and, any nominations cleared for action.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Juliana Richard and Kathryn Berge of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's proceedings.

Mr. President, today I join Senators Leahy and Inouye to introduce the Medical-Legal Partnership for Health Act. This legislation will reduce our Nation's health care costs and improve the health of vulnerable patients by building upon the great work that medical-legal partnerships are doing every day, all across the United States.

Medical-legal partnerships bring legal aid services into medical settings, such as hospitals and community health centers, to help patients overcome problems that create and perpetuate poor health. In today's difficult economy, many Americans are struggling to meet the basic health needs of themselves and their children. This may mean struggling to pay the high costs of medical care or prescription drugs, or putting off an annual check-up until next year.

But some health care needs are non-medical in nature, like making sure your home is properly heated in the winter; that it is not infested by insects or rodents; and that it is free of domestic violence. These needs may require more than just medical care; they may require legal assistance.

Unfortunately, most health care providers are not equipped to deal with the non-medical issues that lead some patients to seek medical care repeatedly or on an ongoing basis. Despite the perception that legal issues frequently affect their patients, a survey of physicians at Boston Medical Center revealed that fewer than 20 percent of doctors knew how to refer patients to legal resources. As a result, many patients never address the root cause of their health problems, leading to costly visits to the emergency room and lengthy hospital stays.

Medical-legal partnerships connect patients with the legal assistance they need to address these root causes. Rather than just applying a temporary fix to a health issue, they help patients get healthy and stay healthy.

In the process, medical-legal partnerships generate substantial cost savings for families and the entire health care system. One study found a 50 percent reduction in emergency room visits following the intervention of medical-legal partnerships, saving families hundreds of dollars per visit. Another study showed that medical-legal partnerships reduced the cost per pediatric asthma patient from $735 to $181 through fewer emergency room visits, while also resulting in decreased frequency and duration of asthma attacks following an intervention. These cost savings not only help keep families out of potentially crippling debt, but they also help reduce emergency room overcrowding and decrease health care expenditures on preventable health conditions.

Unfortunately, many patients are unlikely to seek legal services on their own. Eighty-five percent of patients who sought legal assistance from one medical-legal partnership in California had not used legal resources before and more than 78 percent were not previously aware of legal services at all. By embedding legal services in health care settings, medical-legal partnerships raise awareness of legal services so that patients are more likely to address problems before they turn into crises.

In an article about medical-legal partnerships last year, the Los Angeles Times told the story of Maria Perez. Maria had a fever of 103, her body ached and she had trouble breathing. After being told in the emergency room that she had pneumonia, she went to a clinic in South Los Angeles for a follow-up appointment. The doctor asked Perez about her housing situation. Her apartment had cockroaches and mice, and rain fell through a broken window and filled the walls with mold. The doctor wrote prescriptions to treat the pneumonia and an asthma flare-up and then sent her down the hall to talk to a lawyer.

After the attorney contacted both the landlord and the Los Angeles Housing Department, Maria's living conditions improved, and so did her health. She told the Times: ``The medicine wasn't what cured me. It was [my lawyer] and what he did.''

Medical-legal partnerships also offer a critical lifeline to victims of domestic violence. In my home state of Iowa, a young woman named Brenda sought help to escape an abusive marriage. Her husband was a gang member and threatened to kill her or have members of his gang kill her. One night, while attempting to flee an attack, Brenda's husband pulled her back into the house and beat and choked her until she lost consciousness. When Brenda sought medical care the next day, her care providers referred her to Iowa Legal Aid's Health and Law Project for help.

Iowa Legal Aid helped Brenda obtain a protective order, which included custody of the couple's daughter. Iowa Legal Aid is currently helping Brenda with a divorce so that she and her daughter will have protection and long-term autonomy from her abuser; thereby reducing the need for ongoing health care.

The success of these programs is catching on. The first medical-legal partnership was created nearly two decades ago at Boston Medical Center. By 2009, there were 60 such partnerships across the country. Today there are 90 medical-legal partnerships working with more than 240 health services providers.

Medical-legal partnerships have attracted the attention of corporate America, too. In July, Walmart became the first corporation to take a lead role in a medical-legal partnership, and I commend them for recognizing the valuable role these programs can play in our communities.

After graduating from law school, I served as a Legal Services attorney in Iowa. I learned first-hand how crucial this assistance is to struggling families and individuals who have no place else to turn when they are taken advantage of or abused. I know the invaluable legal help provided to battered women trying to leave abusive relationships while fearing for their safety and the safety of their children. I know that, without access to the legal system, the poor are often powerless against the injustices they suffer.

I am particularly proud of the success of a medical-legal partnership in my home state of Iowa. The Iowa Legal Aid Health and Law Project harnesses the talents of Iowa physicians and attorneys to improve the lives of vulnerable Iowans. By partnering with 17 hospitals and health centers across my state, the Iowa Legal Aid Health and Law Project is able to extend services from Sioux City to Dubuque, and from Council Bluffs to Fort Dodge. In 2009, the program served 880 Iowans, and 94 percent of their cases had a positive outcome. The Iowa Legal Aid Health and Law Project does a remarkable job. They are just one example of the great work going on across the country.

You may be surprised to learn that when it comes to medical-legal partnerships, a little money can go a long way. Iowa's program was started with a federal investment of less than $300,000. The program prevents hospital admissions and emergency room visits that cost hospitals and patients many thousands of dollars in health care costs and insurance premiums. A modest investment in these community programs can help people achieve healthier, safer lives and prevent future hospitalizations and health care costs. That sounds like common sense to me. And that's why, today, I am proud to introduce the Medical-Legal Partnership for Health Act: to give health care providers and lawyers across the country the opportunity to start such programs.

The Act creates a federal demonstration program to help create, strengthen, and evaluate medical-legal partnerships. Overall, this legislation will support 60 partnership sites in community health centers, the Veterans Administration, hospitals, and other health care settings.

I was proud to have the support of former Senator Kit Bond of Missouri when I introduced this legislation during the previous Congress. I know there are many Americans who think that the two political parties in Washington can't agree on anything these days, but this is an issue that has attracted bipartisan support in the past and it is my strong hope that it will do so again. In the spirit of compromise and bipartisanship, I have taken contentious issues off the table: the bill excludes federal money from being used toward class action law suits, medical malpractice cases, representation of undocumented individuals, and abortion or abortion-counseling services.

Medical-legal partnerships also have broad support from prominent organizations representing physicians and attorneys. They've received the endorsement of the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Hospital Association, and the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education, to name just a few.

Through this community-based, common-sense investment, we will be able to help some of our most vulnerable citizens avoid illness and hospitalization, while reducing costs across the entire health care system.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this investment in medical-legal partnerships.

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

Mr. President, today I join Senators Leahy and Inouye to introduce the Medical-Legal Partnership for Health Act. This legislation will reduce our Nation's health care costs and improve the health of vulnerable patients by building upon the great work that medical-legal partnerships are doing every day, all across the United States.

Medical-legal partnerships bring legal aid services into medical settings, such as hospitals and community health centers, to help patients overcome problems that create and perpetuate poor health. In today's difficult economy, many Americans are struggling to meet the basic health needs of themselves and their children. This may mean struggling to pay the high costs of medical care or prescription drugs, or putting off an annual check-up until next year.

But some health care needs are non-medical in nature, like making sure your home is properly heated in the winter; that it is not infested by insects or rodents; and that it is free of domestic violence. These needs may require more than just medical care; they may require legal assistance.

Unfortunately, most health care providers are not equipped to deal with the non-medical issues that lead some patients to seek medical care repeatedly or on an ongoing basis. Despite the perception that legal issues frequently affect their patients, a survey of physicians at Boston Medical Center revealed that fewer than 20 percent of doctors knew how to refer patients to legal resources. As a result, many patients never address the root cause of their health problems, leading to costly visits to the emergency room and lengthy hospital stays.

Medical-legal partnerships connect patients with the legal assistance they need to address these root causes. Rather than just applying a temporary fix to a health issue, they help patients get healthy and stay healthy.

In the process, medical-legal partnerships generate substantial cost savings for families and the entire health care system. One study found a 50 percent reduction in emergency room visits following the intervention of medical-legal partnerships, saving families hundreds of dollars per visit. Another study showed that medical-legal partnerships reduced the cost per pediatric asthma patient from $735 to $181 through fewer emergency room visits, while also resulting in decreased frequency and duration of asthma attacks following an intervention. These cost savings not only help keep families out of potentially crippling debt, but they also help reduce emergency room overcrowding and decrease health care expenditures on preventable health conditions.

Unfortunately, many patients are unlikely to seek legal services on their own. Eighty-five percent of patients who sought legal assistance from one medical-legal partnership in California had not used legal resources before and more than 78 percent were not previously aware of legal services at all. By embedding legal services in health care settings, medical-legal partnerships raise awareness of legal services so that patients are more likely to address problems before they turn into crises.

In an article about medical-legal partnerships last year, the Los Angeles Times told the story of Maria Perez. Maria had a fever of 103, her body ached and she had trouble breathing. After being told in the emergency room that she had pneumonia, she went to a clinic in South Los Angeles for a follow-up appointment. The doctor asked Perez about her housing situation. Her apartment had cockroaches and mice, and rain fell through a broken window and filled the walls with mold. The doctor wrote prescriptions to treat the pneumonia and an asthma flare-up and then sent her down the hall to talk to a lawyer.

After the attorney contacted both the landlord and the Los Angeles Housing Department, Maria's living conditions improved, and so did her health. She told the Times: ``The medicine wasn't what cured me. It was [my lawyer] and what he did.''

Medical-legal partnerships also offer a critical lifeline to victims of domestic violence. In my home state of Iowa, a young woman named Brenda sought help to escape an abusive marriage. Her husband was a gang member and threatened to kill her or have members of his gang kill her. One night, while attempting to flee an attack, Brenda's husband pulled her back into the house and beat and choked her until she lost consciousness. When Brenda sought medical care the next day, her care providers referred her to Iowa Legal Aid's Health and Law Project for help.

Iowa Legal Aid helped Brenda obtain a protective order, which included custody of the couple's daughter. Iowa Legal Aid is currently helping Brenda with a divorce so that she and her daughter will have protection and long-term autonomy from her abuser; thereby reducing the need for ongoing health care.

The success of these programs is catching on. The first medical-legal partnership was created nearly two decades ago at Boston Medical Center. By 2009, there were 60 such partnerships across the country. Today there are 90 medical-legal partnerships working with more than 240 health services providers.

Medical-legal partnerships have attracted the attention of corporate America, too. In July, Walmart became the first corporation to take a lead role in a medical-legal partnership, and I commend them for recognizing the valuable role these programs can play in our communities.

After graduating from law school, I served as a Legal Services attorney in Iowa. I learned first-hand how crucial this assistance is to struggling families and individuals who have no place else to turn when they are taken advantage of or abused. I know the invaluable legal help provided to battered women trying to leave abusive relationships while fearing for their safety and the safety of their children. I know that, without access to the legal system, the poor are often powerless against the injustices they suffer.

I am particularly proud of the success of a medical-legal partnership in my home state of Iowa. The Iowa Legal Aid Health and Law Project harnesses the talents of Iowa physicians and attorneys to improve the lives of vulnerable Iowans. By partnering with 17 hospitals and health centers across my state, the Iowa Legal Aid Health and Law Project is able to extend services from Sioux City to Dubuque, and from Council Bluffs to Fort Dodge. In 2009, the program served 880 Iowans, and 94 percent of their cases had a positive outcome. The Iowa Legal Aid Health and Law Project does a remarkable job. They are just one example of the great work going on across the country.

You may be surprised to learn that when it comes to medical-legal partnerships, a little money can go a long way. Iowa's program was started with a federal investment of less than $300,000. The program prevents hospital admissions and emergency room visits that cost hospitals and patients many thousands of dollars in health care costs and insurance premiums. A modest investment in these community programs can help people achieve healthier, safer lives and prevent future hospitalizations and health care costs. That sounds like common sense to me. And that's why, today, I am proud to introduce the Medical-Legal Partnership for Health Act: to give health care providers and lawyers across the country the opportunity to start such programs.

The Act creates a federal demonstration program to help create, strengthen, and evaluate medical-legal partnerships. Overall, this legislation will support 60 partnership sites in community health centers, the Veterans Administration, hospitals, and other health care settings.

I was proud to have the support of former Senator Kit Bond of Missouri when I introduced this legislation during the previous Congress. I know there are many Americans who think that the two political parties in Washington can't agree on anything these days, but this is an issue that has attracted bipartisan support in the past and it is my strong hope that it will do so again. In the spirit of compromise and bipartisanship, I have taken contentious issues off the table: the bill excludes federal money from being used toward class action law suits, medical malpractice cases, representation of undocumented individuals, and abortion or abortion-counseling services.

Medical-legal partnerships also have broad support from prominent organizations representing physicians and attorneys. They've received the endorsement of the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Hospital Association, and the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education, to name just a few.

Through this community-based, common-sense investment, we will be able to help some of our most vulnerable citizens avoid illness and hospitalization, while reducing costs across the entire health care system.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this investment in medical-legal partnerships.

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

Mr. President, the Senate is in consideration of trade policy this week with an extension of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. TAA is the main way we help American workers cope with the negative effects of our globalized economy. It is a crucial program in both good times and bad, and it must be renewed.

TAA helps workers who have lost jobs through no fault of their own, but rather because of increased competition from imports or because of offshoring. TAA provides workers with critical income support, job training, job search and relocation assistance, and assistance with health insurance premiums. TAA relieves some of the hardship these workers face--helping them get back on their feet and back into jobs.

Trade adjustment assistance is designed to help these workers with unique needs. Workers who qualify for TAA are mostly older workers-- more than half are over age 45--and they often have a hard time getting back into the workforce. Unfortunately, we have all heard many sad stories about workers in their fifties or sixties spending years looking for new work. Many have been at their jobs for decades. They often do not have education beyond high school. For these workers especially, the job training and other services offered by TAA are a way for workers to gain new skills and enter into new and growing industries or occupations.

We have watched the middle class struggle over the last several decades. We see that incomes are stagnating, health insurance and other costs are skyrocketing, good jobs are disappearing. There are many reasons for this, but unfair trade agreements and the failure to enforce our trade laws are certainly among them. When cheaper imports come in to the U.S., American workers making competing goods or providing competing services can lose their jobs as their companies lose business. We have watched manufacturing companies and manufacturing jobs disappear, and now jobs in the service sector are being offshored as well.

So there is no question that TAA must continue. The thousands of workers who have been laid off as a result of trade are depending on us, as will the thousands more who could lose jobs in the future.

We also have to restore improvements to the program that were included in the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, but which expired earlier this year. These improvements updated TAA to respond better to our changed economy. The provisions made sure that more resources were available for workers to go back to school and get training in a new field. They also extended TAA to workers in the service sector--in addition to manufacturing workers already covered. They also ensured that the program was available to workers whose jobs have been shipped to any country, like China or India, even where the US does not have a free trade agreement.

This expansion has been very successful. More than 4 out of 10 workers--nearly 200,000--who qualified for TAA from the passage of the Recovery Act until those provisions expired earlier this year, qualified because of the Recovery Act provisions. In my State of Iowa, a third of the 4,100 workers that qualified in that time period did so under the new provisions. Some of the workers who have participated in the TAA program had worked at companies that are well known in my State: 1,100 workers from Electrolux alone were certified eligible for

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

Mr. President, yesterday the Census Bureau released information about poverty, income, and health insurance in our country, and the news was, in short, devastating. The number of people in poverty is at an all-time high. Income gains over the last decade have been totally wiped out. Americans are struggling more than ever before.

I am appalled by these facts and I know my colleagues are too. Today I wish to talk about these numbers, but I wish to talk about what we can do about them and about where our country's priorities must be and how we have to focus on rebuilding the middle class in light of the new census numbers.

Yesterday we learned that 46.2 million people in America were poor last year. That is more than 15 percent of Americans. Let me remind my colleagues what this means. The poverty line for a family of four with two adults and two children is $22,000--just slightly over $22,000 a year. Can anyone here in this body--and we all know what we make; every Senator, every Congressman, except leadership who get paid a little bit more, makes $174,000 a year. If we think to ourselves: Could we and our spouses and two children live on $22,000 a year, $425 a week? But, beyond that, we also learned that deep poverty; that is, families with incomes less than half the poverty line, is also at the highest rate on record. More than 20 million Americans lived in deep poverty last year. That is just over $11,000 a year for a family of four. That is almost mind-boggling. How do people live like that?

Our children are suffering incredibly high levels of poverty. The Census Bureau pointed out that 22 percent--1 out of every 5 kids in America--were poor last year. When compared to other industrialized nations--the OECD countries--the United States has one of the highest rates of child poverty in the world. That is inexcusable. It is a national crisis. It is something we should be discussing here on the Senate floor daily.

In addition to our children, other vulnerable populations are suffering as well. People with disabilities continue to face higher poverty than people without disabilities. About 28 percent--almost 1 out of 3 individuals with disabilities in America--are poor, compared with 12.5 percent of those without disabilities. That is twice the amount.

Minorities also face devastating levels of poverty. More than a quarter of Blacks and Hispanics--more than 25 percent or 1 in 4--are in poverty in America. Again, keep in mind, for a family of four, that is just $22,000 a year. So 25 percent of Blacks and Hispanics are in poverty, 10 percent of Whites, 13 percent of Asians. These disparities are deeply troubling. More than 10 million Black and Hispanic children woke up this morning in a household struggling with poverty.

Again, we have to remember, while I talk about these as numbers, there is a real story, there is a real family, a real individual, a real child behind every one of them.

There are 46 million stories about families sitting around their kitchen table--if they are even lucky enough to have one--struggling to figure out how to make ends meet, stories of people choosing between whether to pay the rent or pay the utility bills, choosing whether to pay for diapers or medication for their kids, choosing whether to put food on the table or gasoline in the car--so they might get to a minimum wage, part-time job someplace. This should not be happening in America.

We have heard a lot of talk and I have heard Senators and Members of the House in speeches recently talking about how we cannot afford this and we cannot afford that because, let's face it, we are broke, we are deeply in debt in this country and we are broke. I beg to differ. The United States of America is today the richest country in the world--the richest country in the history of the world.

If we are so rich, why are we so broke? We are not poor. We are the richest country in the world. So what this census report yesterday points out is this is a wake-up call that we are failing. We are failing our most vulnerable citizens. We are failing to provide a ladder of opportunity for people to become part of the middle class. We are destroying futures, destroying hope among our children.

First and foremost, I think this report yesterday graphically illustrates how dangerous it would be if we as lawmakers give in to the current atmosphere of budget hysteria--budget hysteria--fear, and fatalism that is now going on on Capitol Hill. By giving in to it, we eviscerate the essential economic security programs just because somehow we want to score political points.

Well, people all know that most people in poverty have a higher rate of not voting than wealthier people. We know that. So I guess, if you want to get votes, you appeal to people who have money. If you want to get elected, you appeal to people who have money because they are the ones who give you money to get elected by, like big corporations. So the poor are kind of forgotten about. So if we give in to this budget hysteria, the first people who are usually hurt are the most vulnerable of our citizens.

The Census Bureau's numbers show, again, without question how effective and important these safety net programs are to keeping millions of people out of poverty. Social Security alone--according to the census numbers, kept 20 million people above the poverty line. Unemployment insurance kept 3.2 million more people out of poverty.

We have always known these are crucial programs, but now we know just how important they are. And other programs, if they were counted by the official poverty measure, which they are not, would have lifted millions more people out of poverty. For example, the SNAP program-- food stamps--would have lifted 3.9 million people above poverty. The earned-income tax credit would have lifted 5.4 million people. Without these crucial safety net programs, the poverty situation would be much worse. Yet, mark my words, with this supercommittee that is meeting or whether we go into some kind of a sequestration or whatever that means around here, are we going to cut back on the food stamp program, are we going to cut back on unemployment insurance, maybe cut back on Social Security, as some would want to do, and Social Security benefits? That just means more people will fall below the poverty line.

I think the second lesson we can learn from this report is about the crippling effect falling paychecks and rising inequality are having on our economy. Income went down again last year. Real median household income was $49,500. That is down 2.3 percent from the year before and down 6.4 percent since the start of the recession. This is not just the effect of the recession; these are long-term economic trends that have caused a dramatic increase in the income inequality in this country, and it has been going on for at least the last three decades, little bit by little bit by little bit, to the point now where we have a huge disparity in income equality in this country.

Again, paychecks for American workers are not falling because they are not working as hard or producing less. According to testimony from former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich to the HELP Committee, the typical American family is working more than 500 hours longer per year now than they were in 1979. Got that. The typical American family is working 500 hours longer per year than they were in 1979. In addition to working longer, their productivity, as measured by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, has continued to rise.

So what has happened? People are working longer. There is more production, more units per person per hour worked, and yet wages have fallen. Why is that? You would think wages and benefits would have gone up with longer hours and more productivity. Well, that is not what happened. It is not that companies cannot afford to pay their workers more. Profit margins of Standard & Poor's 500 companies are at their highest levels since the late 1960s. So what has happened during the last three decades, since 1979, is that the executives have shifted revenues from workers' paychecks to the corporate bottom lines and their own pockets--more to profit, more to capital, less to labor.

We cannot allow these trends to continue. Economists across the political spectrum agree that a major cause of our current economic stagnation is a chronic lack of demand. For nearly three decades, workers' incomes have been stagnant. Working families lack the purchasing power to drive America's consumer economy. Without adequate demand, businesses are reluctant to invest and hire. Simply put, until we raise the numbers on people's paychecks and the number of people working and making a paycheck, the economy will never recover.

The final lesson I think we can learn from yesterday's census report is about health care. There is a small silver lining here. While the recession is obviously continuing to impact health care coverage, there are some signs that the early stages of implementation of the affordable care act, that is, the health care reform bill, are making a difference. While the census data shows that the number of uninsured increased from 16.1 percent to 16.3 percent of the population--the Census Bureau deemed this ``not statistically different''--the affordable care act's requirement that health plans provide dependent coverage to young adults to stay on their parents' policy until age 26 is making a difference.

The data from the Census Bureau shows that the 18-to-24 age group was the only group ``to experience a significant increase in the percentage with health insurance over the past year,'' up to 72.8 percent from 70.7 percent in 2009. So, again, there is a small silver lining there in terms of health care coverage for our younger population. So it is a modest step forward for young Americans.

But the overall picture the census report reveals is a nation--the United States of America--on the brink of a crisis. It should be a call to action. I think the President's jobs bill is a good start. We have to create more jobs, not just any job but good-quality jobs that pay decent wages and benefits, a job to lift a family out of poverty and not to keep a family in it.

Again, I have been paying attention a little bit to some of the debates that have been going on in the other party.

I was looking at the figures from the State of Texas that more jobs have been created in Texas than any other part of the country. Well, when you look closely, Texas had by far the largest number of minimum wage jobs than any other state, and the number of minimum wage workers more than doubled between 2007 and 2010. That is our future--minimum wage jobs at $7.25 an hour? That is barely $15,000 a year, under the poverty line for a family of four. Is that something to brag about, that we are creating more minimum wage jobs that will just keep families in poverty? As I said, we need jobs to lift families out of poverty, not keep them down, under the poverty level.

Lastly, I have said so many times here on the floor that we will not be able to tackle the problem of poverty in this country until we have a strong middle class and a clear path for people to become middle- class citizens. That means we should invest more in education, more in innovation, more in infrastructure-building in this country. It means restoring a level playing field with fair taxation--fair taxation. To repeat something the President said the other night--why should Warren Buffett pay less of a percentage of his income than his secretary? You wonder why people get cynical about government. Of course they are cynical. They have every reason to be cynical when we pass these laws around here and we tax capital at a lower rate than we tax labor. Why should someone who is laboring and working be taxed at a higher rate than a wealthy person who maybe invested a lot of money, and they are putting it all into capital gains, and they are paying a lower rate of taxes than someone who is out there working for a living? Why is that fair?

Well, we also need vibrant unions, vibrant unions that can bargain collectively for their people for wages, hours, conditions of employment. We need a strong ladder of opportunity to give every American access to the middle class.

So, again, yesterday's poverty numbers told a bleak story about 46 million Americans who cannot make ends meet. I hope that next year at this time, when the new census numbers come out, we can begin to tell a different story about how we acted boldly, with imagination and vision, to help these people turn their lives around and build a better future. In a nation as strong and as vibrant and, yes, as rich--as rich--as the United States of America, no one who works hard for a living should have to live in poverty, and we should not rest until that vision becomes a reality.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Christina Wright of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's proceedings.