Floor Statements

Madam President, I wish to pick up a little bit again in my remarks on what the majority leader was just talking about; that is, the lack of focus on jobs in this country.

I am disturbed by the growing disconnect between Washington's obsession with austerity and retrenchment and cutting and slashing and the disconnect from that with the dramatically different needs, priorities, and anxieties of ordinary working Americans. The so-called chattering class here in Washington has persuaded itself that the biggest issue is the budget deficit. But Americans outside the Beltway are most concerned with a far more urgent deficit, the jobs deficit, and their concerns are well founded.

Our Nation remains deeply mired in the most protracted period of joblessness since the Great Depression. Real unemployment is close to 16 percent. Tens of millions of people who are employed are increasingly anxious about being able to hold on to their jobs and to make ends meet.

The American people get it. They want to get this economy moving again, and they know the best way to reduce the budget deficit is to help 25 million unemployed Americans get good, middle-class jobs and become taxpayers once again. With the private sector engine sputtering, there is an absolutely critical role for the Federal Government in creating demand and preventing a double-dip recession.

We have to wonder, is Washington listening to working middle-class Americans? Is Washington listening to the legions of unemployed and the underemployed who are desperate for solutions to their plight? Sadly, I think the answer is, no, Washington is not listening.

Many of our political leaders are treating the jobs crisis as yesterday's news. They are putting deficit reduction above all else. They are demanding extraordinary--in fact, unprecedented--cuts to government funding and government investment. It is akin to a bidding war, driven by the hysteria of the auction rather than the value of the lot: Let's cut $1 trillion. No, $1.5 trillion here. No, I have $2 trillion over here. How about $4 trillion? It is akin to a bidding war to see how much we can cut government funding and investment.

I have to ask, has Washington lost its mind? Don't we realize these Draconian cuts are the economic equivalent of applying leeches and draining blood from a sick patient? Don't we realize this will make both the jobs deficit and the budget deficit far worse?

Of course, we must act aggressively to bring deficits under control. But we have to do this in ways that continue to create more jobs while also improving the long-term competitiveness of the American economy.

We have reached the point of maximum danger in the fragile economic recovery. We are at the point of maximum danger. Employment growth is weak and threatens to stall out altogether. Businesses remain reluctant to invest and hire for the simple reason that there is not sufficient demand for goods and services. All those unemployed and underemployed people are only spending enough to make ends meet. If they are getting unemployment compensation, they are barely making ends meet. There is no excess money. The middle class is tapped out, with stagnant incomes, insecure jobs, high levels of mortgage, and high levels of consumer debt. The threat of a double-dip recession is far too real, and the fear of more unemployment also hangs right over tomorrow's horizon.

In this context, to insist that we slash Federal funding by trillions of dollars is beyond foolish. It is government malpractice. It flies in the face of everything we know and have learned about how economies work.

Two weeks ago, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke stated the obvious. He warned us:

A sharp fiscal consolidation focused on the very near term

could be self-defeating if it were to undercut the still-

fragile economy.

Again I ask, is anyone listening? The alarm bells are ringing all over America.

Recently, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York published an online article about what it called ``the mistake of 1937.'' What is that all about? The New York Fed was referring to the premature fiscal and monetary pullback in 1937 just as the economy was beginning to get its legs to get out of the Depression. That premature retrenchment was a historic mistake. It killed the recovery then in progress and sent us back into the Great Depression for another almost 4 years until it was finally ended with the stimulative spending of World War II.

Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, says that in important ways we have already repeated the mistake of 1937. We have taken our eyes off of what should be our No. 1 priority--creating jobs--and we have pivoted to an obsession--again I repeat, an obsession--with deep, short-term budget cuts which by their very nature will destroy jobs and weaken the economy.

Let me cite another glaring example of the disconnect between Washington and the rest of the country. Here in Washington Republicans assert that the Recovery Act was a failure. Why do they claim that? Because they claim President Obama promised the Recovery Act would reduce unemployment to 8 percent and because that has not happened, it was a failure. We have researched this. The Republican talking point on this President Obama promise has no basis in fact. Independent fact checkers in the media have tried to find such a promise or a statement by President Obama, and they have come up empty.

I say again to my Republican friends, if you have some proof of President Obama saying the Recovery Act would reduce unemployment to 8 percent, please bring it forward. All we have found in checking this was an illustrative table from a report that was published--are you ready for this?--before President Obama took office, speculating that some future stimulus program might reduce unemployment to 8 percent depending on how big the stimulus was.

Those same fact checkers found that President Obama did promise one thing of the Recovery Act: He said it would prevent a new Great Depression and prevent unemployment rates of 12 or 13 percent. That did happen.

Fortunately, ordinary Americans have a better understanding of the Recovery Act. They know hundreds of billions of dollars in middle-class tax cuts in the Recovery Act gave them a modest but a significant boost in income. They know that because of the Recovery Act's assistance to the States, many tens of thousands of teachers, police officers, and other essential employees were able to keep their jobs. They have seen countless highway and other infrastructure projects funded by the Recovery Act. All of these have either preserved jobs or created new and more jobs. They provided significant benefits for our people, including better roads, better bridges, better schools, and other critical infrastructure for the future of our country.

Thanks in large part to the Recovery Act, we have gone from losing 700,000 jobs a month in late 2008 when President Obama took office to adding new jobs now for 16 consecutive months building the infrastructure of America. I know a little bit about this. If you go over to my office, you will see hanging on my wall in my office my father's WPA card. To all of you young people who do not know what WPA stands for, it stands for the Works Projects Administration. It started under Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression to hire people who were unemployed to work on infrastructure projects.

I know my father worked on three of those projects. One was Lake Ahquabi near Indianola, IA, which is still a State park and recreational area enjoyed by people all year-round, especially in the summertime. Another was a high school in Indianola, still in use, built by WPA. The other was the Maffitt Reservoir built by the WPA for a holding of the city of Des Moines reservoir. All three were built by the WPA, still in use today. We can see countless examples of this all over America. We have schools in Iowa which have been modified and upgraded but still were built by the WPA. That is true all over the country.

What happened is they built an infrastructure that helped the private sector be more efficient and more productive and make lives better for our people. We need to do that again, and we need to invest all over America. The Recovery Act started that, but now we know it was not enough and it was not long enough. Just as in 1937, we are about to repeat that same mistake. If we had kept the stimulus going through 1937 and 1938, we would not have fallen back as we did at that time.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that through the end of 2010 the Recovery Act had raised the gross domestic product by as much as 3.5 percent and increased the number of employed Americans by as many as 3.3 million people--employed in the public sector but also in the private sector.

Business columnists and pundits have no doubt that the Recovery Act has boosted the economy. You can go to CNBC or Bloomberg on cable TV. In recent months, it has almost become a cliche for commentators to say this: Sure the economy is growing again, but this is largely because of the Recovery Act and the easing by the Federal Reserve. As those things wind down, the economy will be in danger once again.

OK, it seems to me, then, that we do not want to wind them down. Why wind them down and throw us into a tailspin again? These business pundits are correct. The shot in the arm provided by the Recovery Act is now winding down. It threatens our fragile recovery. In the absence of Federal assistance, many States are making deep budget cuts or laying off their employees. In Texas, Governor Perry has proposed to cut education funding by a staggering $10 billion. In New York City, Mayor Bloomberg has proposed laying off 6,000 teachers. Total State and local government layoffs just in the last 6 months have been nearly 350,000--350,000 people who were working no longer work. They are laid off. Where will the demand be for goods and services from the private sector from all these laid off individuals? Now, if the Federal Government follows suit, after what is happening in our States, with these massive short-term spending cuts, the prospect of a more severe recession will be very real, and we will go off that cliff.

So I reject the false choice between addressing the budget deficit and addressing the job deficit. We can and must do both. As I said earlier, the budget deficit is in large part caused because of the high jobs deficit. High unemployment over the last 3 years has ballooned the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars because tax revenues have fallen. Federal spending has increased for things such as food stamps, nutrition assistance, unemployment benefits, Medicaid. How often do we hear that Medicaid spending is skyrocketing? You know, before you get Medicaid, you have to fall under certain poverty guidelines. The reason Medicaid is going up is because people are not working. People are not working because there aren't any jobs. And there aren't any jobs because the Federal Government will not prime the pump, because the Federal Government--now we are being told we must cut back with huge cuts, tremendous cuts that will further make more people get laid off and will further make the problem even worse than it is now.

The smartest approach is to take measures to sharply reduce the deficits in the medium and long term but to invest in job creation in the short term. We have it backward. Washington now has it backward. My Republican friends have it backward. They are going to slash and cut, and that is going to push us into another recession. Better we invest in the infrastructure and keep new jobs and more jobs out there that will create the pent-up demand we need for goods and services. That will help us reduce the deficit in the medium and the long term.

We have to do it right, a balanced way--some spending cuts, revenue increases. People say: How can we invest, Senator Harkin, in all these roads and new schools and new infrastructure, new energy systems--how can we do that when we are broke? Will we just have to borrow more money from China, go further into debt, put more debt on our kids and grandkids' heads?

I thoroughly reject the premise under which the Ryan budget and the Republican budget is based. It is based on the premise that we are broke, that we are poor, that we can't afford to have teachers and we can't afford to have more medical personnel out there taking care of our elderly, that we can't afford more roads and bridges and sewer and water systems and better school facilities and better technology and new energy systems--we can't afford to do that because we are broke. I reject that. We are not broke. We are not poor.

The United States of America is the richest nation in the history of mankind. We are the richest nation on the face of the Earth. We have the highest per capita income of any major nation in the world. So one has to ask the question, if we are so rich, why are we so broke? Why are we so poor? The reason is because the system is broken.

This really started with the massive tax cuts enacted under the George W. Bush administration in 2001. Need I remind anyone that we had 3 straight years of budget surplus? CBO said that if we kept on the track we were on, we would pay off the national debt by 2010. But as soon as President Bush was in office, Republicans took control of both the House and the Senate and gave, massive tax cuts mostly to the wealthy in our country. That, plus two unpaid-for wars and an unpaid- for Medicare benefit, put us into the greatest deficit and biggest debt we have ever had as a nation.

If 50 percent of the problem we have with the deficit was made because of the tax cuts that mostly went to the wealthy, then we have to think seriously--no, I will rephrase that. We don't have to think seriously; we must act decisively to raise revenues so we

do not have to borrow more money. There are revenues there to be had. A few people made a lot of money in the last 10 years. I don't think it is untoward to ask them to perhaps help rebuild America. The private sector companies, I am told, are sitting on about $2 trillion in cash, and they will not invest it. There is money there. Our tax system--our system is screwed up. So we need both--yes, to make targeted cuts in certain programs. We can do that. But we also need to raise the revenues necessary to invest in putting people to work and rebuilding the infrastructure of this country.

Republicans are saying we need more tax breaks for the wealthy. If working people and the middle class are taking a hit in tough times, it should not be to pay for more tax breaks for the wealthy. As our leader just said, after weeks of debate, Republicans blocked passage of a bipartisan small business bill, and just this week they killed the Economic Development Administration development bill with a proven record of job creation. The key to renewing America and restoring our economy is to revitalize the middle class. That means investing in education, innovation, the infrastructure, boasting American competitiveness in a highly competitive global marketplace. How do we do both? We do it by making certain targeted cuts but raising revenues by raising revenues. I would have to add, one of those ways we have to think about cutting is, why we are continuing to spend billions of dollars and losing American lives in Afghanistan? What are we still doing in Iraq? I saw a recent report that said we have spent over $87 billion in Iraq. What do we have to show for it? Higher gasoline prices than ever before and a country that is still torn apart by internal strife.

If we want to move ahead and create these jobs, it means a level playing field, fair taxation, an empowered workforce, a strong ladder of opportunity to give every American a shot at the middle class.

With the fragile economic recovery, we should not reduce fiscal support for job creation at this time. Deficit reduction efforts can start but sequenced in. When the economy is recovering, that is when they start taking place. Now is the time to invest in job creation. We need to keep our priorities straight. The greatest challenge right now is not the budget deficit. The greatest challenge is the jobs deficit. The greatest challenge is the erosion of the middle class, which is under siege in America. The middle class is being dismantled every day. People are losing their savings, their health care, their pensions and, in many cases, even their homes. These proposed gradual budget cuts, drastic budget cuts will destroy jobs and further damage the economy. The people, the middle class of America, have every reason to believe they are losing the American dream not just for themselves but for their children.

Instead of the Republican budget, which is being sold through fear and fatalism, we need a budget that reflects the hopes and aspirations of the American people. We need a budget that will invest to create jobs, that will bring future deficits under control as more people come to work, as fewer people need Medicaid, as fewer and fewer people need food stamps, as fewer and fewer people need unemployment compensation when they begin working and becoming taxpayers again. It is up to the Federal Government to take this step, and we should not be afraid to do so. It must be bold. It cannot be tinkering around the edges. It must be something that is big and that is bold and that will jump-start our economy. That is our No. 1 priority. I hope we can do this so it will not happen that we go into another Great Depression or what happened in the late 1930s; that we had to depend upon another war to stimulate Government spending and put people back to work. God help us if that is the only thing we can look forward to, to get our economy going again. We should have learned from the past, taken those lessons from the past and take the steps necessary right now to invest in jobs, to rebuild the middle class of America, and to have a fair taxation system so those people at the top who make so much--and I don't begrudge people making money, but I do begrudge if they are not paying their fair share in revenues to this country. That is our challenge. I hope Congress is up to meeting that challenge. The middle class is the backbone of America, and it is time this Congress showed the backbone to stick up for them.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, how much time is remaining on our side?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, how much time do we have remaining now?

Madam President, I also wanted to speak about the new National Labor Relations Board rules that came out just yesterday. It also has a lot do with the middle class in America and what happens to the middle class.

In 1912, women went on strike at a textile plant in Lawrence, MA. They inspired the Nation when they walked the picket lines with signs that said: ``We want bread, but we want roses too.'' Well, what did they mean by that? They meant they wanted jobs, but they didn't want just bear subsistence and slave jobs. As you know, many women died in the terrible triangle shirtwaist textile plant fire. They wanted jobs, but they wanted jobs that paid a living wage. They wanted jobs that did not work people 12, 18 hours a day, 6 or 7 days a week. Those words helped to shape the character of the country we created, a shared prosperity for the American people.

Almost 100 years later, we face the same fundamental question about what kind of country we want to be. When we imagine the America of our dreams or our children and grandchildren, is bread just good enough for the middle class or should we have some roses too?

Republicans portray our country as poor and broke, and they have used that as an excuse to rationalize an unprecedented attack on the middle class. But, the reality is we are the wealthiest Nation in history. It is just more and more of our country's wealth is being concentrated at the top.

Certainly, the American people do not begrudge the rich their good fortune and success. But they do resent it when the wealthy and the powerful manipulate the political system to reap huge advantages at the expense of working people. Today, unfortunately, more and more people sense in their hearts that the rules of the game have are rigged in favor of CEOs and big corporations, and nowhere is this more apparent than the process by which workers form a union or, I should say, by which process workers are blocked from forming a union.

As it now stands, the union election process is a never-ending, bitter struggle marred by corporate intimidation and frivolous lawsuits. Workers have to walk through broken glass on their hands and knees to get the same basic rights that every wealthy CEO has the right to have the terms of their employment set out in an enforceable contract. Right now, CEO's bargain extremely generous salaries and golden-parachute retirements, but millions of hardworking Americans don't have a way to guarantee from week to week that they will have enough hours to feed their family or that their health benefits won't be cut without notice.

So the rules promulgated by the NLRB yesterday try to right this and to make it a fair and equitable process so people can form a union. The proposed rules are very modest. What it does is cut down on the number of frivolous lawsuits and removes unnecessary delays that prevent workers from getting a vote in elections. Sometimes it takes months and, in some cases, years before workers even get a chance to vote on whether or not they want to form a union. All the while, people are harassed and intimidated. These workers know first hand that justice delayed is justice denied. That is not the

American way. Workers deserve a fair shake and a fair election. If people want to form a union, they deserve that right to do so.

The steps they took are common sense. It removes unnecessary delays, cuts down on frivolous legal challenges, gives workers the right to a fair up-or-down vote, in a reasonable period of time. These new rules do not encourage unionization, and they do not discourage it. They just give workers the ability to say yes or no. Again, what they seek is valid.

The current system is broken. If a party takes advantage of every opportunity for delay, the average time before workers can vote is 198 days, and, as I have said, it has taken 13 years before people were allowed to vote in a union election. A study by the Center for Economic Policy Research found, among workers who openly advocate for a union during an election campaign, one in five is fired. Madam President, 9 out of 10 employers require their employees to attend meetings on work time to hear anti-union presentations. Workers are required to attend 10 anti-union meetings. Well, it is time to right this imbalance.

That is what the NLRB did--not tilt it one way or another but to give workers a fair right to have an election. The rules apply to secret ballot elections, but make modest changes to not to have it dragged out for years and years with frivolous lawsuits while preserving employer's due process rights. The new rules standardize time lines for union elections so that both sides have a fair chance to make their case and then employees have the right to a timely vote. They ensure that employers and employees have a level playing field, where corporate executives and rank-and-file workers alike have an equal chance to make their case for or against the union. That is all it is. It is nothing more, nothing less than that. This is a fair set of rules.

I am sure we are going to hear from the business community about this, saying this is meddling and this is going to tilt toward the unions. No, it doesn't. For far too long it has been tilted on the side of the employer and against the unions. Now we bring it back to the middle, where we say we are neither pro nor against, but we are going to let workers have the right to say whether they want to form a union. Some workplaces will choose a union, some will not. But protecting the right of workers to make that choice brings some balance and fairness to the system, so the deck isn't always stacked in favor of the wealthy and the powerful.

America's future depends on the middle class having not just bread, but roses too, just as was the case 99 years ago. Our government faces a clear choice: do we stand for seemingly endless corporate power, or do we stand for the basic rights of working people? Republicans keep pushing for special favors for the wealthy and big corporations, claiming this will create jobs and economic prosperity. Instead, over the last decade, it has brought us high unemployment and the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. The problem with trick down economics is that it failed to trickle down. Wealth has been increasingly concentrated at the top.

There is a better way. Quality jobs that pay a living wage, provide health insurance and a secure retirement are the foundation of a strong middle class. Having a strong middle class that can afford to buy quality products made in America is the recipe for our economic renewal.

I compliment the NLRB. I know I have heard there will be some challenges to it on the floor of the Senate. I hope reason will prevail and the Senate will once again stand for the inherent right of people to be able to organize and bargain collectively for their wages, hours, and conditions of employment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to speak on S. Res. 212, congratulating the people and Government of Slovenia on the 20th anniversary of their nation's independence. I am pleased that the Senate passed this resolution yesterday by unanimous consent and I am grateful to my colleagues Senators Shaheen, Klobuchar, Barrasso, Brown of Ohio and Portman for joining with me in submitting this resolution.

As many of my colleagues know, the Republic of Slovenia holds a very special place in my heart. Ninety years ago, my mother came to America from the village of Suha in what is now Slovenia.

The modern Republic of Slovenia is only 20 years old. But more than 1,000 years ago, in what is now the Slovenian state of Carinthia, there was a duke who later served as one of Thomas Jefferson's inspirations for American democracy. What inspired President Jefferson? It was the tradition that the dukes of Carinthia could take office only after being questioned by a simple peasant to test their worthiness. If the peasant was satisfied with the answers, then he gently slapped the duke as a symbol of accountability to the people. Imagine that: people slapping around politicians in a democracy!

I have been tremendously impressed by the great strides Slovenia has made since breaking away from Yugoslavia two decades ago. In this short period of time, Slovenia has become one of the world's most successful democracies, which I witnessed firsthand during a visit 5 years ago.

Slovenia is what you might call an ``overachiever'' among new nations. In a short period of time, it has gained entry into NATO and the European Union. Indeed, it has already held the rotating Presidency of the EU. Slovenia has built the most successful economy in Central and Eastern Europe and has been a force for stability and democratic reform in the Balkans.

On a personal note, I am especially grateful for the Republic of Slovenia's outstanding leadership in the campaign to rid the world of landmines and to assist the victims, especially children. This is a humanitarian mission of profound importance--a mission that I have worked on, with many of my colleagues, including Senator Klobuchar and former Senator Voinovich, to secure support from the U.S. Congress.

The world looks at Slovenia's success, and wonders: How could a nation of just 2 million people accomplish so much in such a short period of time? As an American, I know the answer.

Bear in mind that, when Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, America was also a nation of just 2 million people. Like Americans in 1776, Slovenians in 1991 dared to break away from a much larger and more powerful mother country. Like Americans, Slovenians paid in blood for their freedom. Like Americans, Slovenians demanded a democratic course for their new country.

Nine decades ago, my mother left Slovenia--a Slovenia that was impoverished, ruled by autocrats, and dominated by foreign powers; a nation that sent forth immigrants desperate to find a better life. Today, a free, prosperous, and democratic Slovenia sends forth global leaders and humanitarians who are helping to build a better world.

This is a magnificent achievement--a testament to the vision, courage, and talents of the Slovenian people. On this proud anniversary, I join with all of my colleagues here in the Senate in saluting our friend and ally, the Republic of Slovenia.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in executive session on June 29, 2011, at 10 a.m. to conduct a mark-up of the following: S. 958, the Children's Hospital GME Support Reauthorization Act of 2011;

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Eric Dodd, Emily Messerly, and Courtney Greenley of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's proceedings.

Mr. President, for most people, it is a given that they are able to see the many wonderful sights the world has to offer. But in this country, more than 10 million people are affected by retinal diseases, such as retinitis pigmentosa and age-related macular degeneration, that result in blindness. These people are being robbed of their vision, plain and simple. By 2020, as the population continues to age, that number is expected to reach 15 million. These diseases might not attract much attention, but their impact on the lives of our friends, family members, and constituents is significant.

Later this month, in Baltimore, MD, the Foundation Fighting Blindness, a private nonprofit that has raised more than $425 million in research funding, will host its national VISIONS Conference. It will gather together visually challenged people from across the United States, as well as eight other countries, along with renowned researchers committed to finding treatments and cures for these diseases and physicians providing patient care.

The Foundation will also celebrate its 40th anniversary by looking back on four decades of breakthroughs, progress, and hope in the field of retinal disease research. There is a lot to celebrate, as recent advances in research, including a number of clinical trials, have given new hope for restoring vision. Results from one breakthrough study funded in part by the Foundation Fighting Blindness show that gene therapy restored vision in patients suffering from a severe retinal disease. In fact, a 9-year-old boy who had lost his vision almost completely was able to play baseball and read the chalkboard in his class for the first time.

This life-changing work is possible thanks to the Foundation Fighting Blindness, which, through various fundraising efforts, provides the capital necessary to launch innovative, results-oriented research--the kind of research promising enough to draw funding from other sources, such as the National Eye Institute, one of the National Institutes of Health. Now, as the momentum continues to build, a partnership between the private and public sectors is crucial to eradicating blinding diseases.

I congratulate the Foundation Fighting Blindness on its 40th anniversary. With the help of this organization and the National Eye Institute, research will continue to flourish until cures are realized.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the completion of my remarks, the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, be recognized for his statement.

Madam President, I strongly oppose both the amendment offered by Senators Feinstein and Coburn and the one offered by Senator McCain that we will be voting on in a couple of hours.

My message today is very simple: This assault on America's ethanol industry is both misguided and undeserved. This is truly a homegrown industry built on the investment and labor of many thousands of Americans providing a product that helps us with one of our most pressing national issues--our dependency on imported oil. Yet here we are debating amendments that I think clearly tell the industry: You aren't important, you don't matter, and you don't have the support of the American people. I think that is not only the wrong message but a misguided message to be sending, and I will tell you why.

We have been struggling with our dependency on oil for almost 40 years. One of our strategies over that period of time has been to develop and commercialize biofuels. I am proud to have been involved from the beginning and I continue to this day to be a strong advocate for renewable biofuels produced from domestic feedstocks. We started working on this, as I said, over 30 years ago. It has been a long campaign, but it has been a remarkably successful campaign when you think about it. It took about 20 years for ethanol to get to the point of contributing just a few percent to our gasoline supply. In the past 10 years, biofuels, and particularly ethanol have gotten to the point where they now displace about 10 percent of our gasoline supply. Think about that: 10 percent of our gasoline supply, used basically for transportation, is displaced by biofuels. I think that is a remarkable achievement. No other alternative supply comes close.

In fact, no alternative supply provides even 1 percent of our domestic fuel demand. Let me repeat that: No other alternative to ethanol comes even close to displacing 1 percent of imported oil. Yet ethanol is displacing 10 percent today. Again, a remarkable achievement.

Our oil dependency problem is still with us. We still depend on it from many nations that are unstable or unfriendly to us, and it is getting worse. Oil imports are costing us on average, over the last few years, about $100 per barrel.

I know many of my colleagues share my strong concern about oil imports and the need to find alternatives, and that is why we passed new CAFE standards in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. That is why we adopted a mandate for renewable biofuels in that same bill--a mandate for their use. Going back further, that is why we began providing tax incentives for biofuels production already in the 1970s. That is why we promoted alternative fuels in the 1991 Energy bill. That is why many of us today are promoting hybrid and electric vehicles. And that is why we need to continue to support the production of ethanol and other domestic biofuels.

Just as increasing efficiency standards have been a big success in reducing demand, promoting biofuels has been, by far, our biggest success on the supply side. They have gone from a few percent at the turn of the century to about, as I said, 10 percent today. Moreover, looking ahead, the most likely supply-side alternative to displace the next 10 percent of our gasoline demand is biofuels. Again, we recognized this fact in 2007 when we adopted the renewable fuels standard 2 RFS2--that requires 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022-- 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022.

Now, again, we should pay attention to the options. Let's promote alternatives, such as electric vehicles. I am all for that. But we should also make sure, since we are going to be using liquid fuels for most of our transportation fleet in the next 10, 20 years and beyond that we look at the biofuels. It is renewable--renewable and clean. Our biofuels challenge isn't production or even economics; our challenge is adapting our transportation markets, our fuel markets, to be able to utilize the biofuels.

Again, as I said, most of our biofuels are in the form of ethanol. That will continue to be our principal biofuel for many years to come. However, today we can only displace 10 percent of our gasoline in the form of a 10-percent blend of ethanol. It is called E10. You can go to your gas stations--and my friend from Oklahoma was referring to the ethanol blends, which is what we have today--and those are limited. Most of it is E10. Again, we need to be able to use higher blends--15 percent, 20 percent, even as high as 85 percent of ethanol.

In fact, in my State, and in our neighboring State to the north, Minnesota, we are beginning to see pumps called E85--85 percent of the fuel that comes out of it is ethanol, and only 15 percent is gasoline. Quite frankly, the flexible-fuel cars run just fine on that 85 percent blend. The problem is we need more blender pumps at our filling stations. We don't have them, but we need them. We have them in a few States, but very few States have blender pumps. So we need to pass a bill like S. 187, the Biofuels Market Expansion Act, which I introduced in January.

I remember a few years ago that Senator Lugar and I had a meeting in the Ag Committee room. We had the major oil companies come in to ask them why they didn't put more blender pumps in their fuel stations. Their answer was very clear and very logical.

They said: Well, why would we take up valuable space in our filling stations for a blender pump when there are almost no flexible-fuel cars out there that could use it? Point well taken.

So after that we called in the automobile companies. I know we had Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda, I believe there was, and we asked them: Why don't you make more flexible-fuel cars? The response, from their viewpoint, was very logical: Why should we build more flexible-fuel cars when there aren't any blender pumps out there? Point well taken.

So here we have the chicken and the egg dilemma. The oil companies say

they don't want to put in blender pumps with no flex-fuel cars out there, and the automobile manufacturers say they don't want to build flex-fuel cars because there are no blender pumps.

I might point out that in Brazil almost every car built by Ford, by GM, by Honda, or Toyota--those built in Brazil--are basically built for flexible fuel. They will burn anything from 10 to 20 to 50 to 85 percent--actually, in Brazil, up to 100 percent--of ethanol. That is the direction we need to go here.

With these two amendments today, we find ourselves going in exactly the wrong direction. The Feinstein-Coburn amendment tells the ethanol industry that it no longer has the support of Congress. The McCain amendment would block one of the most critical things we need to do; that is, the installation of flexible-fuel pumps.

I have said many times that we can reform our biofuels policy. I am more than willing to give up the ethanol tax credit. I have said that before on the Senate floor. We can give up the ethanol tax credit if the ethanol industry has access to the market. But when we take the two amendments together, one pulls the rug out from underneath the ethanol industry in terms of its tax credits--and I am saying: OK, fine. That is fine. We can do that, if we have access. Then the McCain amendment comes along and says: No, no, you can't use any of the funds we have put in the last Ag bill--which had tremendous bipartisan support, I might add--for blender pumps at fuel stations.

So here we have it. Tell the ethanol industry it can't get the tax credits, and guess what. We are going to keep them from getting access to the marketplace. That is what we need--market access for ethanol. You can go to Exxon and Mobile and Shell and all those gas stations. Do you think they want to put in an ethanol pump? They are OK with 10 percent--they will do the 10 percent now--but we need them to put in those blender pumps, and the automobile companies need to produce cars that are flexible fueled. They do a few of them now, but every car built ought to be flexible fuel so people can choose.

As I have said, ethanol can stand on its own two feet now, if people have the right and the freedom and the ability to use it. But if we are up against monopolistic kinds of filling stations that won't permit a blender pump to be put in, then ethanol has no marketplace.

We also need to build a dedicated pipeline for ethanol. The oil companies and the gas companies have their own pipelines. They would not put any ethanol through those pipelines. They say it is due to water and all that, but let's face it. They won't put any ethanol through their pipelines. The private sector can build--not the government but the private sector--and is willing and ready to build a dedicated pipeline from the Midwest to the east coast. A couple of companies have already secured most of the rights-of-way and are ready to go. All they need is one simple thing: a loan guarantee. They do not need money, just a simple loan guarantee so they know they can build the pipeline and that the ethanol industry can use it and get the fuel to the east coast, where the majority of our population is right now and where we don't have enough ethanol in our major population centers.

So, again, we need to redouble our national commitment to expanding the use of renewable energy and weaning ourselves off of imported oil. But we are not going to do it with these two amendments today. The ethanol industry just wants the marketplace to be able to accept it, and they will stand on their own two feet. They can do that. That is more important than the tax subsidies.

I might also add, I remember debating this issue with the then- Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm. We had a lot of debates on the Senate floor back in the 1980s or 1990s, I guess, on this issue.

I pointed out at that time that if you talk about the tax credits and support from the government the ethanol industry has gotten, it pales in comparison to the dozens of years of tax writeoffs and benefits we have given the oil companies in America going clear back to about 1920.

If you think about all the tax benefits we have given the oil companies in America to drill, to produce, to ship, to pipe, to refine, to market, and add it all up, ethanol is just a small part of that. But the oil companies have never given up. They have never given up on their assault on ethanol and on biofuels.

The Coburn amendment is precipitous. At the end of the year, the ethanol tax credits are going to expire. Hopefully, before the end of the year, we will reach some agreement, work out something where we have more access to the marketplace, and then we can do away with the tax credits. But we should not take an action that would slash the value of the ethanol industry's primary product by nearly 20 percent overnight.

Think about it this way. We have a 1-year extension of the ethanol tax credits that goes to the end of this year. We did that. The Congress did that. We said that to the industry. Investors have come in, modifications in plants have been made, plants have been built. Yet in the middle of the year we are going to say no? We are going to take it away?

To all my friends over there who keep talking about the private sector and how we need the private sector and don't need the government, you are going to pull the rug out from underneath the private sector on a guarantee that we gave them earlier this year. No industry could survive a shock such as that, and it is wrong. It is wrong to do that at this point in time.

We all know one thing. This afternoon, people can come down and vote against ethanol, vote against the tax credits for the ethanol industry, vote to cut off marketplace access to ethanol, but nothing is going to happen. The House will blue-slip it, and then we will be on to doing what needs to be done in a logical way; that is, to reduce the tax credits for ethanol, which I am in favor of doing. In fact, we then can promote market access.

Senator Lugar and I, in the past, have worked on bills together, basically like the bill introduced this year, that would do three things: It would mandate a certain proportion of blender pumps be installed at the large gasoline stations, those that are owned by the major oil companies. It would provide tax credits to the small mom-and- pop stations that would put in the blender pump in their station, the independents. Third, it would mandate a gradual increase over the next few years of the number of cars produced in America and sold in America that are flexible fueled. If we do all those things, ethanol will stand on its own two feet.

I wished to say one last thing before I yield the floor to the Senator and that is this. Right now, much is made of the fact that there is $5 billion of tax credits this year going to the ethanol industry. I understand that. However, because of the lower price of ethanol, because we are blending 10 percent ethanol into gasoline, all the people in America today are paying less for their gasoline than they otherwise would if we didn't have ethanol. So if you take that into account, the fact that the consumers of America, when they fill their gas tank, are paying less than they would if they didn't have ethanol, that more than offsets the $5 billion we have put into the tax credits for ethanol support.

So, yes, we have supported the ethanol industry with $5 billion. I dare say, we have gotten back probably twice as much as that in savings at the gas pump for the consumers of America.

Perhaps that is what the oil companies are mad about. Maybe they would like to have that money for themselves. I suppose that is probably true. I understand that. But I think our obligation is to the consumers of America and to the private sector, which is operating on a guarantee we gave them that we would have these tax credits at least until the end of this year, and I think on an implicit guarantee that we gave that we would make sure there would be a marketplace that would be open and accessible for biofuels.

So that is what we need to do, to reduce the tax credits but open the marketplace for the ethanol with blender pumps and with flexible fueled cars. But that is not before us today. But we will continue to work together again toward the end of this year to make a reasonable, smooth transition from the tax credits to access to the marketplace, and I will take the floor again and again during the remainder of this year on these issues.

I am not doing it today, but I will show the amount of tax benefits that the oil companies have gotten over the last 80 years. Add that up and compare it to what the ethanol industry has gotten over the last about 30 years, and you will see that the oil companies have gotten a lot more than what ethanol has ever received from the government.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet on Thursday, June 23, 2011, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Stories from the Kitchen Table: How Middle Class Families are Struggling to Make Ends Meet.''

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Zach Schechter Steinberg on (202) 224-5441.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Katy Jones, Caitlin Lawrence, and Jean Fleming of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor during today's session.

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

Mr. President, when Gerry Counihan leaves the Senate employment in the next couple of days, we will lose one of the most respected and beloved members of our Senate family. During his nearly two decades of service with the Senate, he has epitomized the professionalism, dedication, loyalty, and the incredible work ethic of the best staff members on Capitol Hill. So we are saying farewell not just to a wonderful Senate employee but also to a very good friend.

Mr. President, Gerry Counihan first came to Capitol Hill in 1991 as a member of John McCain's staff. He later left the Senate for a brief time, but returned in 1997 as a tour guide in the Capitol Building, where he truly excelled. In fact, Gerry made a bit of history himself. He gave the first public tour following the fatal shooting of two Capitol police officers in 1998. When the Capitol reopened to visitors following the attacks of September 11, 2001, Gerry again led the first tour of the Capitol.

Four years ago, sadly, Gerry was the victim of a violent crime and sustained very grave injuries. He spent over 4 weeks at the National Rehabilitation Hospital. It was a long and courageous struggle to learn to walk and speak again. But he persevered and succeeded.

Unfortunately, Gerry was not able to return to his job as a tour guide because of his injuries, but he was hired by the Sergeant at Arms to work as one of our elevator operators. That is where I and so many other Senators have had the pleasure of meeting him and enjoying his company in recent years.

I can't tell you how many times during late night sessions he has brightened our lives with a kind word or bright smile. I can't tell you how many times he has shepherded us into the sanctuary of his elevator while fending off intrusive reporters or lobbyists. We have always been grateful to him for that.

No question about it, Gerry Counihan has been one of those very special people who make the Senate a great place to work.

Gerry is moving on to a new career with new responsibilities and new opportunities at the Department of Health and Human Services out in Rockville, MD. With his departure, we are saying goodbye to a standout Senate staffer, a great friend, and someone who always brightens our day. We will miss him very much.

There are not many things that Republicans and Democrats agree on in this body these days, but our love for Gerry Counihan is bipartisan and--indeed, I can say this without any fear of contradiction-- unanimous. The Senate family joins together in wishing Gerry happiness and success in his new career.

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

Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to acknowledge and celebrate the World Day Against Child Labor, which was commemorated earlier this week.

An estimated 215 million children across the world are still trapped in the worst forms of child labor. A report issued by the International Labor Organization, ILO, in May 2010 offered some good news in the fight against child labor. There is a decline in the number of girls trapped in child labor. There are fewer children doing hazardous work. We are closer than ever to universal ratification of ILO Convention 182, which prohibits the worst forms of child labor. Mr. President, 173 out of 192 participating nations have ratified this convention.

However, due to the economic crisis, there also have been setbacks. Child labor has been increasing among boys and in young people between the ages of 15 and 17. Progress in reducing child labor in Sub-Saharan Africa has stalled. While some people may point to the global economic crisis as a cause of these setbacks, we cannot use this as an excuse for complacency.

One can look at the country of Uzbekistan to see the dire need for more action. According to School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London, over 2 million children are forcibly pulled from school by government officials to work in cotton fields. Uzbek cotton is listed as a good produced by forced labor and child labor by the Department of Labor. It is listed on the Tier 2 Watch List in the State Department's Trafficking in Persons Report. Yet despite this clear, compelling, and thoroughly documented evidence of Uzbekistan's abject failure to live up to its international commitments under ILO Convention 182, business goes on as usual. Uzbekistan has received no sanction and continues to receive trade benefits from the United States under the Generalized System of Preference.

The work performed by these children, stooped over to pick cotton under a hot Sun, also falls under the category of hazardous work. Hazardous work is by its very nature likely to harm the health and safety of children. Hazardous work exposes children to physical, emotional, or even sexual abuse. It includes children working underground in mines, underwater, at dangerous heights, or in confined spaces. Children work with dangerous machinery, equipment, and tools. They may work in in unhealthy environments, exposed to hazardous substances like nicotine in tobacco fields or to extreme temperatures, noise levels, or vibrations that can damage growing bodies. Some children are even forced to work such long hours that they are up for entire nights or are not allowed to return to their own home at the end of the day.

The ILO estimates that 115 million children perform hazardous work. Forty-one million of these are girls and 74 million are boys. Sixty-two million are between the ages of 15 and 17, and 53 million are 14 years old or younger.

It is vitally important to get children out of the worst forms of child labor, including hazardous work, so they may attend school, do well in their studies, and gain the knowledge and skills necessary to build a decent life. To this end, the U.S. Government needs to approach the scourge of child labor in a holistic manner. We need to address the underlying poverty that forces so many children to forgo schooling in order to meet even their most basic needs.

Fortunately, through the Department of Labor, the United States has undertaken projects to do just that. In Ghana, DOL is working with the ILO and the Government of Ghana to implement a new, holistic program to reduce child labor in the cocoa sector by 70 percent by 2020. This effort has gone hand-in-hand with a renewed effort by the international cocoa industry, which has pledged $7 million in new funding to this fight. I have been personally involved in this effort with my good friend and colleague in the House of Representatives, Congressman Eliot Engel of New York.

In fact, this unified effort of the U.S. Government, the Ghanaian Government, and the cocoa industry recently reviewed innovative programs proposed by the cocoa industry in support of its $7 million pledge. It is my hope that this approach, governments working hand-in- hand with industry and implementing partners, can become a model to combat the worst forms of child labor worldwide.

This is just one example of many Department of Labor programs that are in progress all over the world. Another such program, in Guatemala, takes at-risk children and provides them afterschool activities that reinforce their education, giving them an opportunity for recreation and personal growth in stark contrast to the stunted prospects that follow from being forced to work long hours. Another program, in Lahore, Pakistan, has redesigned the looms people use to weave carpets, eliminating hazards such as back injuries and bone deformities that have plagued children. These and other Department of Labor projects form the backbone of U.S. efforts to combat the worst forms of child labor.

It is not enough to do this just at the Department of Labor though. In Afghanistan, a 2006 UNICEF report estimated that one in four children between the ages of 7 and 14 is subject to the worst forms of child labor. As the Department of Defense and other departments are spending huge amounts of U.S. taxpayer dollars in Afghanistan, it is vitally important to require child labor protections in our various programs and contracts in that country.

Starting this year, a Department of Defense contract to provide market access to Afghan carpet makers will work hand-in-hand with the proven GoodWeave certification system to assure that the carpets made under this taxpayer-funded program are not made with the worst forms of child labor.

So while there has been much progress made, and our efforts abroad are continuing to build success, we must remain vigilant, even here at home. Regrettably, there are some States here in the United States that are trying to undermine the fundamental protections we have afforded to children for generations. For example, the Republican-controlled legislature of Maine decided to pass a bill stripping State-level child labor protections. Maine's Republican Governor decided it would be better for his State to take a step backward because he personally went to work at age 11, and, as he put it, ``It's not a big deal. Work doesn't hurt anybody.''

Well, I would like to tell you how putting a job before children's education can set them back. At a time when it seems that most new jobs require high skill levels, great harm is done by denying these children a chance to acquire these skills. We need to be educating the next generation of doctors, engineers, and scientists. However, the OECD shows that the United States has slipped to the 23rd best country at science education and 31st at math.

We are not going to catch up to other countries if our children are spending too much time working at McDonald's or Burger King. I agree that having a part-time job after school or on weekends can be beneficial. However, studies have shown that teenagers working more than 20 hours a week have a greater tendency toward academic and behavioral problems, as well as higher dropout rates. The United States should aspire to being the country that outbuilds, outeducates and outinnovates. If we continue undermining our child labor laws and neglecting education, we will be the country that outgrills, outflips and outfries!

There are even some Members of the Senate who have questioned whether child labor laws are constitutional. Apparently the protection of our most vulnerable children from exploitation isn't part of protecting the general welfare. Apparently the Supreme Court was incorrect when it unanimously upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act 70 years ago.

It is for all of these reasons that I continue the fight against the worst forms of child labor. It is also why I have come to the floor today to salute

the World Day Against Child Labor. But 1 day is not enough. We should be focused on the needs of these children not only on June 12 each year but 365 days a year.

Mr. President, rarely has Washington been so completely out of touch with the priorities and anxieties of ordinary working Americans. Here on Capitol Hill, policymakers are obsessed--obsessed-- with the budget deficit. But the rest of America is most concerned with a far more urgent deficit--the jobs deficit.

Our Nation remains deeply mired in the most protracted period of joblessness since the Great Depression. Officially, some 14 million Americans are out of work. But real unemployment--the real unemployment, including those who are working part time but want to be working full time; those who are marginally attached; those who have never worked in the first place because they never got a job--if we add that all up, we have closer to 25 million Americans unemployed, and millions of Americans who are employed are increasingly anxious about holding on to their jobs or, at their present income, making ends meet.

But many of our political leaders in Washington are treating the jobs crisis as yesterday's news. They are putting this deficit reduction above all else. They are demanding extraordinary funding cuts-- trillions of dollars in cuts, and the sooner the better, with little concern as to its adverse impact on jobs. But this is exactly the wrong approach. It is the economic equivalent of applying leaches and draining blood from a sick patient, which we used to do, by the way. That is what they did to George Washington as he lay dying. They applied leaches to him. What does that do? It just makes us weaker, and in the case of President Washington proved fatal.

In the same way, trillions in budget cuts would massively drain demand from a still weak economy. It could destroy millions of jobs. This is not just the wrong medicine for our economy; it will slow or stop economic growth, and it will make deficits worse in the future.

As Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke warned last week:

A sharp fiscal consolidation focused on the very near term

could be self-defeating if it were to undercut the still

fragile economy.

I strongly disagree with the slash-and-burn approach to deficit reduction favored by some of our colleagues. We need to recognize one of the very big reasons for the budget deficit is the jobs deficit. The best way to bring the budget under control is to help these 25 million Americans who are unemployed get good-paying middle-class jobs. It is hard-working Americans who would be delighted to be taxpayers once again.

Now, obviously, we are counting on the private sector to help drive job creation and make the economic recovery self-sustaining. It should be the case if we put more money into infrastructure. If we were to do our job in rebuilding our roads and our bridges, our highways, our sewer and water systems, our rail systems--the government doesn't do that; it goes to private contractors, private companies. Some of this is already happening but certainly not at the pace we need.

Since March of 2010, the private sector has created about 2 million jobs. However, businesses remain reluctant to invest and hire for the simple reason there is not sufficient demand for their goods and services. All of those people who are unemployed and underemployed are spending the bare minimum just trying to get from week to week. Meanwhile, the middle class is tapped out with stagnant incomes-- stagnant incomes. For over 30 years, the middle class has had stagnant real incomes. They have insecure jobs, high levels of mortgage, insufficient pension funds, and other consumer debt.

That is why the Federal Government has had to play an aggressive role in helping us to recover from this great recession. Over the last 2 years, we have repeatedly cut taxes. We have extended financial aid to the States. That helped prevent massive layoffs of teachers and first responders and other essential employees.

We have made major investments in research, education, and infrastructure. All of these have either preserved jobs or created new jobs. Listen to this. We have gone from when President Obama took office--we were losing 700,000 jobs a month--700,000 jobs a month. That is just a couple of years ago. Now we are adding new jobs for the first time--and we have had 16 new consecutive months of adding jobs. Not enough. Not enough. But we are at least moving in the right direction.

The Economic Policy Institute estimates that as of the fourth quarter of 2010, the Recovery Act had created or saved up to 4 million jobs and as many as 5 million full-time equivalent jobs. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that through the end of 2010, the Recovery Act had raised the real inflation-adjusted gross domestic product by as much as 3.5 percent.

So to those who said the Recovery Act did not do anything, that is nonsense. That is absolute nonsense. It did a lot. But here is the problem: The shot in the arm provided by the Recovery Act is now winding down. In the absence of further Federal assistance, many States are making deep budget cuts and layoffs of public employees.

Listen to this. In Texas, Governor Perry has proposed to cut education funding by a staggering $10 billion. New York City Mayor Bloomberg has proposed laying off 6,000 teachers. Total State and local government layoffs since August of 2008 have been nearly 500,000. If the Federal Government follows suit with massive short-term spending cuts, the prospect of a double-dip recession will be all too real.

Last week the Federal Reserve Bank of New York published an article about what it called the ``Mistake of 1937,'' referring to premature fiscal and monetary pullbacks that cut short the fragile recovery and ended up prolonging the Great Depression.

Princeton economist Paul Krugman says that in important ways, we have already repeated the mistake of 1937. We have taken our eyes off what should be our No. 1 priority, creating jobs. We have pivoted since 6 months ago, since the last election, to an obsession with deep short- term budget cuts, which by their very nature will destroy jobs and weaken the economy.

Everyone agrees we must take aggressive action to reduce the deficit. But we have to do it right. We need to reduce long-term deficits but in a way that absolutely minimizes immediate job losses. We need to reduce the deficit in a balanced way.

Unfortunately, the extreme budget offered by Congressman Paul Ryan, supported by almost every Republican in the House, and I would say also in the Senate, would make our fiscal and jobs problems far worse. That Republican budget lavishes yet more tax cuts on corporations and the wealthy, as it slashes investments that undergird the middle class in this country, everything from education funding to Medicare and Medicaid.

Let me state what I think is obvious. If working people and the middle class are going to take a hit in tough times, it should not be to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. If the middle class is going to take a hit, let's use those taxes to put money into rebuilding the infrastructure of this country, put it into better education, better schools, better teachers.

I have often said the key to renewing America and restoring our economy is to revitalize the middle class. That means investing in education, innovation, infrastructure, boosting American competitiveness in a highly competitive global marketplace. It means restoring a level playing field with fair taxation--fair taxation.

It also means an empowered workforce, a strong ladder of opportunity to give every American access to the middle class. I believe that corporations and the wealthy can return to the levels of taxation they had in the 1990s when the economy boomed and incomes also skyrocketed.

It is absurd to take the position that any dollar in tax increases that results from having the wealthy pay their fair share or ending tax loopholes is bad and unacceptable. I think it is absurd to take that position, while at the same time you take the position that it is okay to slash funding for education, for infrastructure, for research.

In both the 1980s, under Ronald Reagan, and in the 1990s under Clinton,

we achieved a sensible balance of revenue increases plus domestic and Pentagon spending cuts in order to dramatically reduce deficits while we protected the middle class and we maintained safety net programs.

I agree with the economists who believe that given the fragile economic recovery, we should not reduce fiscal support for job creation at this time. Deficit reduction efforts can start, but we should sequence the lion's share of spending cuts so that they take place in the midterm and the long term when the economy is recovered. But now we have to keep our priorities straight.

Deficit reduction, yes, is important, but it is not our most important economic challenge right now. Our most urgent economic challenge is the fragile economy and the jobs crisis and the fact that the middle class in America is under siege. The middle class, in fact, is being dismantled as fast as big corporations can ship our manufacturing jobs overseas. People are losing their savings, their health care, their pensions, in many cases even their homes.

With good reason, people feel that they are losing the American dream for themselves and their kids. That is why we cannot look at the deficit reduction challenge in isolation. We cannot just take a Draconian slash-and-burn approach to the budget. Smart countries in tough economic times do not turn a chainsaw on themselves.

The extreme Republican budget is far more focused on shrinking the size and role of government than it is on cutting the deficit. Instead of that budget, the Republican budget, which is being sold through fear and fatalism, we need a budget that reflects the hopes and the aspirations of the American people. We need a budget that allows us to continue investments, that boosts competitiveness, creates jobs, and strengthens the middle class. There can be no real economic recovery, there can be no return to fiscal balance, without the recovery of the middle class in America. That is why our immediate No. 1 priority must be helping to create jobs, putting people back to work. That is how we will start to restore more demand for goods and services, the key to healthy economic growth. Economic growth, in turn, will help generate the revenues that will help bring deficits back into balance, into rough balance. So this is our most important job in front of us.

Yet all we hear is the constant drumbeat: Cut the size of government; cut spending; slash and burn and cut everything that supports the middle class in America; ship our jobs overseas; more tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations.

We need to be focused on rebuilding the infrastructure of America, because that is most necessary now. That is one of the fastest ways we can put people back to work and start stimulating the economy. We need to put more money into education: rebuilding our schools across America, hiring better teachers. We need a longer school day, and we need a longer school year. I know some of the young people probably do not want to hear that.

Most young people in Europe, Asia, Japan, do not go to school 9 months out of the year, they go to school 11 months out of the year. They do not go to school for 5\1/2\ or 6 hours a day, they go for 8 hours a day. We wonder why they are getting ahead of us. But that costs money. If you are going to have a longer school year, that costs money. If you are going to have longer schooldays, if you are going to have better technology in our schools, schools that have the latest in technology so our young people can learn on the latest innovations, so they can be competitive in that global marketplace, that does cost money.

Yet to hear it around here, we cannot do anything. No, of course, now there is one place we can spend money. We can continue our operations in Iraq for God knows how many more centuries. We have already spent over $1 trillion in Iraq. We have already spent close to $100 billion in Afghanistan. But we can continue to do that with no end in sight. We can continue to buy more weapons that do not do anything to protect us in the new global fight against terrorism. They might have been good back in the Vietnam war, maybe in the Cold War. But that is over with. But, no, we have got to keep pouring money into weapons systems that do nothing to protect the country.

Two decades ago, President Clinton's team defined our Nation's central challenge with a slogan--I remember it well--they said: ``It's the economy, stupid.''

Well, today America's central challenge can be defined with more precision. ``It's the middle class, stupid.'' It is what we do to encourage, promote, protect, invigorate the middle class in America, to make sure the middle class has good jobs, good pensions, good health care systems, the ability to make sure their kids are well educated, and that they do not go to college and get out with a mountain of debt on their heads so that they too can have a good start in life. This is all part of the middle-class structure of America, as to what made America the greatest country in the history of the world.

I will close. It seems that the Republican budget they have proffered, and so much that I hear of those who keep saying, we have got to cut, cut, cut, we have got to cut spending, we have got to cut education, we have got to cut infrastructure, we have got to cut all of that stuff, it almost seems as though it is premised on the belief that we are poor--our country is poor and our country is broke and we cannot afford to do all of those things. That is really what it is. They say we are broke. We cannot afford to do all of that stuff, so we have got to cut our spending. Yet we are the richest Nation in the history of mankind. We are the richest country in the world. We have the highest per capita income of any major country. I guess you have to ask the question: If we are so rich, why are we so broke? If we are the richest country in the history of the world--we are the richest country in the world today, we have the highest per capita income of any major economy--why are we so broke?

Well, my response is, we are not broke and we are not poor. We are wealthy beyond all imagination as a nation. We are not broke. But the system is broken. That is what is broken. The system is broken, the system of who we tax and how we tax, how we raise revenues, the system of allowing corporations to tax benefits and ship jobs overseas, the system that allows companies to almost willy-nilly break up what has been one of the strengths of the middle class, that is, our labor unions. They are breaking up labor unions because they know the middle class working together in organized labor has been able to bargain more effectively for better jobs and better wages, better conditions of employment. You break them up and you can reduce their incomes, and more of it can go to profits and to higher CEO salaries. That is the system that is broken.

You can cut all the spending you want. You can cut the Federal Government to the bare bones. It will lead to another great recession, maybe even a depression. If you want to do that, that is a dead-end road.

We need more stimulus now. Does that mean we have to borrow more money and go further into debt? Not necessarily. Why don't we fix this unfair tax system we have and generate more revenues to come into the Federal Government? Why don't we say to those who made so much money in the last decade or so, maybe you ought to pay a little bit more, and for big corporations, pay a little bit more, and for the Federal Government to put that money to use rebuilding the infrastructure and educating our youth and having a health care system that is affordable and comprehensive. That is what we ought to be doing. That will support the middle class. In supporting the middle class, you will then support economic recovery.

I will close. There will be no economic recovery in America of any substance or lasting any length of time without a recovery of the middle class, which is the backbone of our country. It is time our political leaders showed some backbone in supporting the middle class.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kelsey Beltramea, Nikhil Sahai, and Cathryn Curoe of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's proceedings.

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

Madam President, I wish to take a few moments to talk about the Republican budget, the so-called Ryan budget in the House. This has been widely condemned, of course, for its plan to end Medicare and for its radical cuts to Medicaid. But I have come to the floor to highlight yet another extreme element of that Republican budget--its unprecedented assault on education funding and the grave threat this poses to school reform efforts across the United States.

This Republican budget would slash funding for education by 15 percent next year--2012. Even more drastic cuts to education funding would come in each of the years to follow.

These Draconian cuts to education could not come at a worse time for America's public schools. The final budget agreement for the current fiscal year reduced education funding by $1.3 billion. It zeroed out, for example, the successful Striving Readers Initiative, the only comprehensive Federal program to help struggling adolescent readers. I might just add, that budget ended all literacy programs for kids in America funded by the Federal Government. The Federal Government now does not fund one literacy program in America. That is how bad it has gotten. Meanwhile, cash-strapped State and local governments are slashing school budgets and firing tens of thousands of teachers. In Texas, Gov. Rick Perry has called for a $10 billion cut in education funding. In New York City, the mayor, Mike Bloomberg, has proposed laying off 6,000 teachers.

I have an unusual perspective, as both the chair of the appropriations subcommittee that funds our Federal education programs as well as the chair of the authorizing committee, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which authorizes education programs.

There is no question in my mind that combined Federal, State, and local budget cuts pose a grave threat to education reform efforts across the country, just as these efforts are reaching a critical mass. Here is why. Forty-eight States and the District of Columbia have collaborated to create high-quality common education standards for the first time. The Obama administration's Race to the Top Initiative has jump-started ambitious State-level reforms ranging from expanded charter schools to stricter teacher and prep school accountability. In the HELP Committee, Senator Enzi and I together are working on a bipartisan effort to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

However, it is wishful thinking to expect improvements in school quality at a time when we are laying off teachers, increasing class sizes, and reducing instructional time. I am struck by the fact that the Republican budget's assault on education comes at a time when America's competitors are surging forward. For example, China has tripled its investment in education and is building hundreds of new universities. Even in times of austerity and shrinking budgets, smart countries don't just turn a chainsaw on themselves, they continue to invest in the future and, above all, they continue to boost investments in education.

So as we go forward with education reform in the United States, we are building on strength. Most kids in affluent communities already attend high-quality public schools and go on to higher education. Our challenge is to ensure that all American students have this opportunity, including the nearly 20 percent of children who live in poverty.

Again, certainly money is not the only factor in creating high- performing schools, but it does take money to modernize school facilities, to hire highly qualified teachers, to create effective assessment systems, and to provide appropriate instructions for students with special needs. To demand reform without resources is to set up students and teachers to fail. Let me repeat that. To demand reform without resources is to set up the students and the teachers to fail.

In the months ahead, Congress will be focused on reducing the deficit and trying to prevent a default on America's debt obligations. Of course, this is appropriate. But it must not preclude sustained, strong investments in education for our young people. We need to invest more, not less, in helping States and districts to close the gap between world-class schools that are in the affluent suburbs and the struggling schools in poor, urban, and rural communities. We need to provide resources to ensure that the goal of graduating students who are college and career ready applies equally to all students, including kids with disabilities, including English language learners. In the face of steadily rising college tuition, we must maintain the maximum Pell grant so kids from low-income families can achieve the American dream and get a college education.

Pundits have attributed the GOP loss in the special election in New York's 26th congressional district to voter anxiety because of the plan the Republicans have to end Medicare. So a lot of the pundits have said: Well, this recent election in New York's 26th congressional district is the result of that. But public dissatisfaction with the Republican budget goes way beyond Medicare. Americans see this budget as unbalanced and unfair, especially when it comes to education.

The American people are asking: Why do the Republicans insist that trillions of dollars are available for new tax cuts, mainly for big businesses and the wealthy, but supposedly we cannot afford to sustain funding for public education? This is a classic case of eating your seed corn. It is an approach that does not remotely reflect the priorities and values of the American people.

The Republican budget, as I have said before, is premised on the idea that America is poor and broke, that our best days are behind us, and that we have no choice but to slash investment required in order to keep our middle class strong. I totally disagree. Many Americans are hurting because of the struggling economy, but the United States overall remains a tremendously wealthy and resourceful nation. Quite frankly, we are the richest Nation on the face of the Earth. Even further, we are the richest Nation in human history. We have the highest per capita income in America of any major nation. So one has to ask the question, if we are so rich, why are we so poor? The question is not the lack of money. It is not the lack of wealth. It is because the system is broken. We have a system malfunction in this country, and we have to right that system. Because we are an optimistic, forward- looking people, we can do it. We can work together, and we can meet any challenge.

But we expect the government to be on our side--not holding us back, not dragging us down, not shorting our futures, not telling people who are low income or recent immigrants to this country or kids who do not have a good start in life that, sorry, we cannot give you a world-class quality education, we cannot afford to have the best teachers, we cannot afford to have good schools for you.

If you happen to be wealthy and live in a wealthy area that has high property taxes and you have a good school and you have good teachers, good for you. But if by happenstance of birth you are born to a family who does not have any money and maybe your parents never went to college--maybe, as I said, they are new immigrants to this country; maybe they do not speak English that well--if you are in a poor urban area or a poor rural area and you have low-quality schools, low-quality teachers, chances are you never had any early learning available to you. So when you started kindergarten, you were already way behind those kids in that affluent school in high-income areas.

Is that what we are about? Is that what we are trying to say, that we are going to have this kind of almost class warfare, that if you are born wealthy and stuff, you have it made but if you are born poor, forget about it when it comes to education? That is what the Republican budget says. We are not going to have quality public education for our kids.

As I said, this does not reflect the values of the American people. We want to make sure our public education system is good for all children, that they all have the best qualified teachers, that they have good schools, good facilities, the latest technology, that they are challenged to do their best, and that they know if they do their best and if they study hard and they get good grades, they will be able to go to college and not have a mountain of debt hanging over their heads when they graduate.

We have done great things as a society, things we have had to do together, which we could not do as individuals, such as building an interstate highway system, a rail system, mapping the human genome, and, again, creating world-class universities. We have done this. We have done this working together, as something we can do together as government that we cannot do as individuals.

Through our government, we come together to provide a ladder of opportunity to give every citizen a shot at the American dream--a ladder of opportunity that includes Pell grants, the GI bill, job training, early learning, and, yes, world-class schools.

I am convinced the great majority of Americans share this positive vision. Again, we are determined to bring deficits under control. But we cannot eat our seed corn. We have to make smart investments in education, and we refuse to be dragged backward into a winner-take-all society, where the privileged and the powerful seize an even greater share of the wealth, even as our schools are crumbling and our middle class is struggling and declining.

For nearly half a century, robust Federal investments in quality public schools and access to higher education have been a critical pillar undergirding the American middle class. The Republican budget will take a jack hammer to that pillar. This, I believe, is a grave mistake. The middle class is the backbone of our Nation. It is time our leaders show the backbone to defend it.

Amendment No. 390

Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity also to strongly oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from Maine. If passed, the amendment would impose severe and unnecessary burdens on agencies charged with protecting the American people and would severely weaken our vital health and safety protections.

My Republican colleagues have tried hard to make the word ``regulation'' into a bad word. They have created an absurd caricature: the nameless bureaucrat arbitrarily imposing random rules and regulations on businesses, and their sole purpose is making sure the business fails. That is ridiculous.

Most Americans understand this is grossly distorted. The truth is, the amendment offered by the Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, is not about the government working more efficiently--a goal we all share--it is about using the sort of feel-good slogan of ``regulatory reform'' as cover for an effort to paralyze the ability of the government to enforce vital health and safety protections.

In effect, the Snowe amendment ought to be called the ``buyer beware'' amendment. Go back to the days when the snake oil salesman could sell you anything and you took it at your own risk, where we did not have safe drug laws and food safety laws and things such as that to protect people. It was just a buyer beware society. Do we want to go back to that?

I believe the American people want clean air and clean water and to know they are not adulterated. The Snowe amendment would weaken environmental protection.

I believe the American people want to make sure their children's toys are safe, that they are not loaded with mercury and other elements that will destroy their health. The Snowe amendment would mean weaker protection of toys and other consumer products.

I believe the American people want workers to come home safely at the

end of the day. The Snowe amendment would mean more injuries and deaths in mines and other hazardous workplaces.

I believe the American people want the food they eat to be safe and untainted. The Snowe amendment could mean we cannot enact implementing regulations for our recent bipartisan food safety bill, which we just passed last year--bipartisan. But when you pass a bill, obviously, the Food and Drug Administration is going to have to issue regulations. Well, the Snowe amendment would severely restrict that. Again, you would be playing Russian roulette with the food you eat. Maybe it is safe; maybe it is not--buyer beware.

I believe, in the wake of the financial meltdown of 2008, which almost caused another Great Depression, the American people want oversight and regulation of banks and other financial institutions. The Snowe amendment, again, could mean banks would remain free to do the same reckless, predatory practices that nearly wrecked our economy.

There are already important checks on regulatory authority. The law already requires agencies to perform comprehensive assessments of the impact of regulations on businesses and local government. There is an extensive notice and comment period under the Administrative Procedures Act, where those impacted by potential rules--including small businesses--are given an important say in regulation. Agencies already engage in regulatory flexibility analysis to ensure that their oversight does not needlessly overburden small businesses.

In contrast, the aim of the Snowe amendment is to impose additional hurdles to dramatically slow down the issuance of critically needed rules and, in many cases, stop the rulemaking process altogether. For example, the Snowe amendment would require an analysis of ``indirect'' impact on small businesses--``indirect'' impact, whatever that means. Well, let me cite perhaps an example.

Instead of the Mine Safety Health Administration spending its resources protecting our miners, the amendment could require the agency to determine whether a new mine safety standard indirectly harms, say, a small paper company that supplies paper to the mine's corporate offices. This is a ridiculous waste of resources and time. So we do not even know what the ``indirect'' impact means. That could mean almost anything.

Likewise, the amendment would permit businesses to sue to block a rule even before it is finalized. In other words, businesses could seek to litigate a proposed rule. I often hear my Republican colleagues speak against activist judges. I can think of few things more activist than for unelected judges to review a rule even prior to the agency performing the lengthy notice and comment process to finalize a rule. It already takes years for agencies to promulgate health and safety rules. This amendment would exacerbate the problem and further clog up the court system. Think about all the court cases that would be filed just on a proposed rule, before it even goes to the comment period, before it is even finalized.

Moreover, the bill requires an agency to review the impact of all-- all--its current rules on small businesses to determine if a rule must be modified, rescinded or continued unchanged. In other words, rather than addressing new problems and implementing new acts of Congress, an agency would need to spend all its time reviewing past, settled regulations, some of which may have been in effect for the last 50 years.

To its credit, the Obama administration already is conducting a comprehensive, rigorous review of all rules in order to see which ones should be repealed, modified or kept in place. We should let this careful review take place before implementing severe constraints on agency rulemaking.

So the Snowe amendment would make government less responsive. It seeks to cripple the government's ability to make sensible lifesaving regulations.

Again, it ought to be titled the ``buyer beware'' amendment. If you like living in that kind of a society, I suggest you go to some Third World country, where you do not know what you eat or what you drink or whether the air you breathe and the water you consume is safe and healthy. If that is the kind of America you want, you should support the Snowe amendment. But if you want an America where our kids are safe from dangerous toys, where you know the food you eat is going to be safe and the water you drink and the air you breathe, where you know there are safety rules in place so you are not going to get unduly injured or harmed at the workplace, if you believe this is the kind of America that operates better and is more functionally productive than a buyer beware kind of society, then I suggest you should oppose the Snowe amendment.

Again, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Snowe amendment as ill- advised. Again, it is a part of a bill that has never gone through the committee hearing process. If nothing else, it ought to go through committee, have hearings, and let's see if it has any support at all out there before we bring it to the floor of the Senate. I urge my colleagues to defeat the Snowe amendment.

I yield the floor.