Floor Statements

Mr. President, one of our greatest national priorities is ensuring that all students in all schools are in settings that are safe; classrooms that support learning; situations that ensure our children will be successful.

To be a successful student, to be a contributing citizen to our democracy, to be prepared for college and the workforce of tomorrow, our students need to be of sound mind, of sound body, and have access to resources that will support their success.

Students who travel to school safely; who attend classes in structurally sound buildings where the adults model positive teamwork and collaboration skills; where good nutrition is available and where opportunities for physical activity are available and expected; where they have a safe, supportive social environment, students who have all of these conditions in their schools will be prepared to achieve high academic standards.

In a country where almost one in every five children is obese, where thousands of students are bullied and harassed daily, and where access to high-quality mental and physical health care is limited, students must have these basic conditions for learning in order to be successful.

While the Department of Justice reports that the rate of serious incidents of school violence continue to decline, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, bullying remains a pervasive problem that affects almost one in four students each year. As

we have seen in recent times, sometimes bullying results in the worst possible tragedy, the death of a child.

Fifteen-year-old Phoebe Prince, a freshman at South Hadley High School in Massachusetts, endured nearly three months of routine torment by classmates. On January 14, 2010, Phoebe hanged herself in the stairwell of her family's home, following weeks of taunting by classmates. The day before she died, she told a friend: ``School has been close to intolerable lately.'' In California, thirteen-year-old Seth Walsh committed suicide this past October because of the bullying he experienced in his school. We need to have the expectations in all of our schools that all students will be valued and all students will have a safe haven to learn and achieve. In New York City, middle schooler Gurwinder Singh was targeted by bullies who bashed his head into a metal pole while bystanders watched, because of his Sikh religion. Luckily, Gurwinder survived, and has become an outspoken proponent of bullying prevention. We cannot stand idly by when school becomes a hostile place for kids.

Thus, today, I am introducing the Successful, Safe and Healthy Students Act. This legislation will advance student achievement and promote the positive physical, mental, and emotional health of students throughout the nation. It will help to reduce violence in schools, prevent bullying and harassment, help students make responsible choices about drugs, tobacco, and alcohol, and create the type of school environments where students can do their best work and achieve the highest possible academic outcomes, while also becoming healthy, happy and productive members of their communities.

Essential conditions for learning include schools that provide for adequate physical activity, positive mental health, and safe environments. Those conditions include physical and emotional safety for both students and school personnel and promote positive character development in our youth. Schools with the essential conditions for learning also provide for opportunities for good nutrition and healthy living, and are free of violence, harassment, bullying and other forms of interpersonal aggression. Schools that have the right conditions for learning are free of weapons and prevent the use and abuse of drugs and alcohol. And schools with good conditions for learning have positive adult role models with high expectations for students' development, conduct, and academic achievement.

For those who might be skeptical about these critical conditions for learning, we only need to look to the States and their efforts to improve school performance and accountability. Many States are moving beyond the limited measures of school performance required by No Child Left Behind and have started to collect data on school-wide factors that are associated with student success. Some of these areas include school climate, physical activity of students, and physical and emotional safety. In fact, a March 2011 report from the RAND Corporation indicated that many States are now establishing accountability systems that include school safety, school climate, family involvement, and student engagement.

This legislation will provide to each State the support necessary to measure the conditions for learning in each school in each school in the State. Resources will also be available to offer grants to school districts to establish policies and activities to improve the conditions for learning in each of their schools. This legislation gives State and local school districts the resources and opportunities to create safe, healthy schools that will enhance the academic achievement of students.

This legislation is an essential tool for our States and local schools to support students who are prepared for college, a career, and to be world-class citizens.

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

Mr. President, safe, modern, healthy school buildings are essential to creating an environment where students can reach their full academic potential. Today, too many students in the United States, particularly those most at risk of being left behind, attend school in facilities that are old, overcrowded and run-down. The 2009 Infrastructure Report Card compiled by the American Society of Civil Engineers gives public schools a D grade. Too many of our Nation's schools were built over a half century ago, and are not equipped to meet the needs of 21st Century students and teachers. School-facility needs are impacting the preparedness of our children for work in critical fields, such as mathematics and science.

The National Center for Education Statistics reported in 2000 that the Nation's elementary and secondary

schools required approximately $127 billion to repair or upgrade their facilities. A 2008 State-by-State analysis by the American Federation of Teachers found that the Nation's school infrastructure needs total an estimated $255 billion. While the condition of public school buildings is primarily a state and local responsibility, the Federal Government can and should help, especially when it comes to closing disparities between affluent and disadvantaged school districts. The current economic environment makes it exceedingly difficult for States and school districts to renovate and in some cases build new schools to meet this important need.

That is why I am pleased to introduce the School Building Fairness Act. This legislation provides $1 billion to States for competitive matching grants to local educational agencies; LEAs, for school repair, renovation, and construction. In awarding the grants, States must consider poverty, condition of school facilities, capacity, adherence to green building standards, and likelihood of maintenance. I have seen this work in Iowa with the success of the Iowa Demonstration Construction Grant Program, which provided over $121 million in federal assistance to over 300 school districts and leveraged more than $600 million of additional local funding through the matching requirement. I am sure that it will work across the rest of the country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, safe, modern, healthy school buildings are essential to creating an environment where students can reach their full academic potential. Today, too many students in the United States, particularly those most at risk of being left behind, attend school in facilities that are old, overcrowded and run-down. The 2009 Infrastructure Report Card compiled by the American Society of Civil Engineers gives public schools a D grade. Too many of our Nation's schools were built over a half century ago, and are not equipped to meet the needs of 21st Century students and teachers. School-facility needs are impacting the preparedness of our children for work in critical fields, such as mathematics and science.

The National Center for Education Statistics reported in 2000 that the Nation's elementary and secondary

schools required approximately $127 billion to repair or upgrade their facilities. A 2008 State-by-State analysis by the American Federation of Teachers found that the Nation's school infrastructure needs total an estimated $255 billion. While the condition of public school buildings is primarily a state and local responsibility, the Federal Government can and should help, especially when it comes to closing disparities between affluent and disadvantaged school districts. The current economic environment makes it exceedingly difficult for States and school districts to renovate and in some cases build new schools to meet this important need.

That is why I am pleased to introduce the School Building Fairness Act. This legislation provides $1 billion to States for competitive matching grants to local educational agencies; LEAs, for school repair, renovation, and construction. In awarding the grants, States must consider poverty, condition of school facilities, capacity, adherence to green building standards, and likelihood of maintenance. I have seen this work in Iowa with the success of the Iowa Demonstration Construction Grant Program, which provided over $121 million in federal assistance to over 300 school districts and leveraged more than $600 million of additional local funding through the matching requirement. I am sure that it will work across the rest of the country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Madam President, everyone in this body agrees that we must take aggressive action to reduce the deficit, but we have to do it right. Frankly, the best way to bring down the deficit is to help 15 million unemployed Americans get good middle-class jobs again. Those hard-working Americans would be delighted to be on the tax rolls and to be taxpayers once again. But, regrettably, the tea party budget passed by the House Republicans last month takes us in the opposite direction--it would weaken our economy and destroy jobs.

I have spoken previously on the Senate floor about the grave flaws in the Republican budget. But beyond the misguided priorities in that budget, I object to its premise. The premise of the tea party Republican budget coming over from the House is that America is poor and broke and we can no longer afford the investments that make possible a strong middle-class and world-class economy. Indeed, some House Republicans take the radical view that government has no business investing in the middle class, period. I emphatically reject the defeatist premise of this Republican budget. The United States of America is a wealthy Nation--the wealthiest Nation in world history. The problem is how that wealth has been shared or not shared among the American people, with income inequality that is the highest among developed countries. Let me repeat that. Right now, income inequality in America is the highest among developed countries. So the problem is how our wealth has been invested or misinvested, with trillions of dollars squandered by money manipulators on Wall Street or funneled to those at the top through tax cuts.

Unfortunately, the tea party budget, authored by Congressman Ryan, would make these problems far worse. It lavishes yet more tax cuts on corporations and the wealthy even as it slashes investments that undergird the middle class in this country--everything from education funding to Medicare and Medicaid. Let me state the obvious: If working people in the middle class are going to take a hit in tough times, it shouldn't be to take a hit to pay for tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

Let's look at some of the particulars in this so-called deficit reduction plan of the House Republicans. For starters, never before have I heard of a deficit reduction plan that begins by demanding trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, largely for corporations and the wealthy. In addition to allowing the very wealthy to keep all of the benefits of the Bush-era tax cuts and to keep them permanently, the Republican budget would cut the top tax rate from 35 percent down to 25 percent. Let's again state the obvious: This doesn't reduce the deficit; it digs the deficit hole much deeper.

Next, the Republican budget dismantles Medicare and Medicaid and lays the groundwork for deep cuts to Social Security--changes that will devastate the economic security of the middle class in this country.

The Republican budget says we cannot cut one additional dime from the Pentagon budget because I guess to them there is no waste in the Pentagon, there are no unnecessary weapon systems, no troops based in Japan or Europe or elsewhere who could be brought home. Meanwhile, this tea party Republican budget slashes Federal investments in everything from education to infrastructure to law enforcement back to the levels of the 1920s. Again, let me repeat that. It slashes Federal investments in everything from education to infrastructure to law enforcement back to the levels of the 1920s.

It also repeals Wall Street reform that we passed here, as well as the consumer protections in the affordable care act, including the ban on denying coverage for preexisting conditions. What has that got to do with the deficit?

Their budget cuts funding for food safety, workplace safety, environmental protection, and guts the commonsense regulation of corporate America. It tells Wall Street bankers and speculators, health insurance companies, credit card companies, and mortgage lenders: You are free to go back to the reckless abusive practices of the past. We will just trust you to do what is right for the American people.

To appreciate just how extreme and ideological this budget is, look more closely at the blueprint for replacing Medicare with a voucher system. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2030, future seniors would have to pay two-thirds of the cost of their private health insurance. Their out-of-pocket costs would average in excess of $12,000 per person, per year--more than double the current

cost to seniors. Yet this would pay for private plans that would provide only half of current Medicare coverage. How many seniors can afford to pay $12,000 annually out of pocket for health insurance that only gives them half the coverage they have right now for Medicare? And good luck finding affordable coverage if you are a 70-year-old with a preexisting condition, such as heart disease. Good luck fighting endless battles with your private health insurance company over that one.

Madam President, does this tea party Republican budget reflect our values and priorities as Americans? Is this the kind of country we want to live in, the kind of country we want to pass on to our children? Of course not. Americans don't want or expect a handout, but they rightfully expect a government that lends a helping hand, not one that stands in their way and not one that destroys the essence of the middle class. The American people want a government that helps them to achieve retirement security, a government that makes sure that when we put money away for retirement, it is going to be there when we retire. The American people want to maintain strong investments in education and infrastructure.

To reduce deficits, the American people want shared sacrifice, including an increase in revenues from those who can most afford it. They want an end to taxpayer subsidies to oil and gas companies, and they want to cut Pentagon spending. Yet the Republican budget does exactly the opposite in every single respect.

Make no mistake, this tea party Republican budget puts us on a course of disinvestment, drift, and decline. This budget wreaks of pessimism and gloom and doom. As I said, its defeatist premise is that the United States is poor and broke and we can no longer afford a strong and secure middle class, we can no longer afford to prepare our young or care for our elderly. Yet, bizarrely, the Republicans insist that we can afford--we can absolutely afford--another enormous tax cut for millionaires and billionaires.

I totally reject their premise. I reject this defeatist Ryan budget-- the premise that America is poor and broke.

Here is the truth: The United States is recovering from the largest economic downturn since the Great Depression and from the damage caused by very unwise budget decisions made over the last decade, and we are growing wealthier by the day. Our entrepreneurial economy, our technology, our universities and the arts are the envy of the world. Americans are still the best educated and most productive people on Earth.

Most importantly, Americans continue to be an optimistic, can-do people. We have faced national trauma, including depressions and wars and national disasters, many times before, and we have always rebounded stronger and better than ever. We can overcome our current challenges without sacrificing our great middle class and without abandoning our seniors or people with disabilities and the less fortunate among us.

There is one important point of agreement on both sides of the aisle here in the Senate: We agree the current budget deficits are unacceptable. We must bring these deficits under control.

However, deficits are by no means our only urgent economic challenge. An even greater challenge--a greater challenge--is our fragile economy and the jobs crisis. Addressing this successfully will help reduce the deficit. Now, the unofficial unemployment rate is 8.8 percent, but the real unemployment rate, including people who are underemployed or who have dropped out of the job market in frustration and are no longer working, is a staggering 16 percent.

Meanwhile, our middle class is under siege. Our middle class is being dismantled as fast as big corporations can shift our manufacturing jobs overseas. People are losing their savings, their health care, their pensions, and in many cases losing even their homes. With good reason, the American people feel they are losing the American dream for themselves and for their children.

That is why we cannot look at the deficit reduction challenge in isolation. We cannot just take a slash-and-burn approach to the budget. Smart countries do not just turn a chainsaw on themselves. Instead of this tea party 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 brings deficits under control in a way that allows us to continue investments that boost competitiveness, create jobs, and strengthen the middle class.

I would add this: We need a deficit reduction plan that actually attacks the sources of our current deficits. What are those sources? Well, a remarkable article from the front page of Sunday's--May 1-- Washington Post by Lori Montgomery documented clearly how the huge budget surpluses of the Clinton years were turned into the $1 trillion budget deficit President George W. Bush passed on to President Obama. The article states:

Voices of caution were swept aside. Political leaders chose

to cut taxes, jack up spending, and, for the first time in

U.S. history, wage two wars solely with borrowed funds.

The article cites a new analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office which determined that ``routine increases in defense and domestic spending account for only about 15 percent of the financial deterioration. The biggest culprit, by far, has been an erosion of tax revenue, triggered largely by two recessions and multiple rounds of tax cuts.''

The article also notes that Federal tax collections now stand at their lowest level as a percentage of the economy in 60 years.

Let me repeat that--their lowest level in 60 years.

Of legislation passed since 2001, when George W. Bush became President, about half of the negative impact on deficits came from reductions in revenue and nearly a quarter came from increases in defense spending. One-half came from reductions in revenue.

I am talking now about what are the sources. What are the sources of the deficit hole we are in? In 2001, we had huge surpluses. CBO said if we maintained the same budget policies that by 2010 we would have paid off the entire national debt. 10 years later, in 2011, we have a $1.4 trillion deficit. What happened? What decisions were made in those 10 years that put us in that hole?

As I said, the article by Lori Montgomery in the Washington Post clearly points out, and the CBO clearly points out, that half of the hole we are in came from reductions in revenue, one-quarter came from increases in defense spending, and one-quarter from everything else.

As the CBO analysis makes clear, we do not just have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem. The main source of our current deficit problem is not the modest increase in domestic spending beyond the one-time spending in the Recovery Act--which is rapidly coming to an end. The principal source of our deficits is the deep tax cuts and the surging Pentagon budget, 75 percent of our current problems.

Yet now the tea party Republican budget calls for trillions of dollars and yet more new tax cuts, largely for those at the top. It refuses to cut Pentagon spending in any significant way. It places almost the entire burden of deficit reduction on programs that support the middle class, seniors, people with disabilities, and those of low income.

Americans are rightly asking some commonsense questions. If a principal source of our deficit problem has been deep tax cuts largely benefitting those at the top, shouldn't a big part of our deficit reduction plan include allowing those unaffordable tax cuts to expire? If ongoing domestic spending increases are only a minor source of our deficit problem, why does this Republican budget take a slash-and-burn approach to these programs which are so important to the middle class and to working Americans? The answer, of course, is the tea party Republican budget is not principally a deficit reduction plan. It is an ideological manifesto that encompasses the entire party wish list, everything from more tax breaks for the rich to dismantling Medicare and Medicaid.

I have a simple test for judging any budget plan. What does that plan do to give hope and opportunity to middle-class Americans who have been hardest hit by the economic downturn?

To speak in terms specific to my State of Iowa, what did it do for Webster City? Webster City is a community

like thousands of others across the United States. It is a town where middle-class families work hard, play by the rules, sacrifice for their children. But it is also a town where a decent middle class way of life is threatened. Recently, in Webster City, IA, the Electrolux plant that has been the town's economic engine for over 80 years closed its doors. Production was moved to Juarez, Mexico. In the final round of layoffs in March, 500 Iowans lost their well-paying, middle-class jobs.

This most recent factory closing comes on the heels of 222 plant closings just in Iowa last year, destroying nearly 12,000 well-paying, middle-class jobs. As we all know, each of these plant closures reverberated on Main Street, with many local stores and restaurants falling on hard times or going out of business themselves. Let's be clear, the wrong kind of budget plan, one that indiscriminately slashes funding for education and job training, infrastructure and research, will deepen the plight of Webster City and similar communities across America. Indeed, by accelerating the erosion of the middle class in this country, such a plan will make our fiscal situation even worse. There can be no sustainable economic recovery in the United States without the recovery of the middle class. There can be no sustainable solution to our budget challenges without a strong middle class, a middle class that is getting its fair share of rising national income.

As I said earlier, we are growing wealthier by the day in America. We are the wealthiest country in world history, and we are growing wealthier by the day. But what we ought to make sure is that the middle class will get its fair share of that rising national income.

Again, I think the test of a budget plan is this: Will it strengthen the middle class in America? Will it require shared sacrifice with a promise of shared prosperity in the long run? I have applied this test to the tea party Republican budget and it comes up woefully short.

This tea party Republican budget cuts the top tax rate for millionaires and billionaires from 35 percent down to 25 percent. How will that help laid-off workers in Webster City?

The Republican budget dismantling Medicare and replacing it with an absurdly inadequate voucher system, will that strengthen the retirement security of seniors in Webster City?

This budget of the Republican tea party people guts Medicaid. Will that improve the lives of seniors and people with disabilities who depend on Medicaid to pay for nursing home care and home health care assistance?

The tea party Republican budget slashes funding for Pell grants. Will that improve the prospect for kids in Webster City who plan to go to college but whose parents are now unemployed and without resources?

The tea party Republican budget makes Draconian cuts to everything from food safety and law enforcement to environmental protection. How will that improve the quality of life in Webster City and communities across America? We know the answer to these questions. The bottom line is, the Republican's budget offers more pain and no gain to the people of Webster City. Instead of increasing opportunity, it sends a message of surrender and defeat. Indeed, let's speak the plain truth. With this tea party budget, Republicans have taken their class warfare to a new level. They have launched an unprecedented assault on middle-class and working Americans. Their message to struggling folks in Webster City and communities like it across America is brutally clear: Tough luck. I have mine. You are on your own.

This Republican tea party budget would drive down our standard of living, shred the economic safety net, reduce access to health care and higher education, and do damage to our public schools' ability to prepare our kids for the jobs of the future. We can and must do better.

I have come to the floor to propose an alternative approach to the Federal budget, a planned approach that will discipline the Federal budget and bring deficits under control while continuing to make critical investments in a stronger America. Best of all, we know this approach can work because it is consciously modeled on the successful budget policies of the 1990s.

Under President Clinton's leadership, Congress passed a bold economic plan that combined tough-minded spending cuts with smart investments and, yes, revenue increases. This created large budget surpluses and put us on a track to completely eliminate the national debt within a decade. It created a brief era of shared prosperity for the middle class, with 22 million new jobs and 116 consecutive months of economic expansion, the longest in American history.

I say to the people across America, we can do this again. The key to renewing America and restoring our economy is to revitalize the middle class. This means reducing deficits while continuing to invest in education, innovation, and infrastructure, boosting American competitiveness. It means restoring a level playing field with fair taxation, an empowered workforce, and a strong ladder of opportunity to give every American access to the middle class.

We have the resources, both financial and human, to do these things. I repeat what I said earlier, the central falsehood in the tea party Republican budget is its assumption that America is poor and broke; its assumption that we can no longer afford to invest in a prosperous and secure middle class. Again, I say emphatically, we are not poor and we are not broke. We have the highest per capita income of any major country. As I said earlier, the problem is how our wealth is distributed, how it is managed, and how it has been invested--or should I say ``misinvested.''

Income inequality in the United States has reached levels not seen since immediately before the Great Depression. Middle-class Americans are working harder than ever, but they are falling behind. Real average incomes have not gone up since 1979, more than three decades ago. Let me repeat that: Average real incomes haven't gone up since 1979, more than three decades ago. In fact, over the last decade, the average income of working Americans has actually declined while those in the top 10 percent of income earners and wealthy in America, their incomes and their wealth has soared to new levels. Vast wealth because of tax breaks and other government preferences have flowed to millionaires and money manipulators who pay a tax rate that is lower than that paid by their chauffeurs and secretaries.

In 2007, the top 25 hedge fund managers took home an average income of $892 million--yes, you heard that right, $892 million each, average income for 1 year. Over the last decade, the average income of the top 1 percent in America increased by an average of more than one-quarter of a million dollars a year. Again, let me repeat: The top 1 percent of income earners in America, their income increased by an average of more than one-quarter of a million dollars a year for 10 years. I ask, who in their right mind believes these people need another giant tax cut?

People do not hate the rich. To the contrary, most Americans aspire to do well and to achieve financial independence. That is a big part of the American dream. But Americans do resent it when the wealthy and powerful manipulate the political system to reap huge advantages at the expense of working people and the middle class. Ordinary people think the game is rigged and unfair, and you know what? They are right. Yet this tea party Republican budget says to middle-class Americans again: Hey, tough luck. I have mine. You are on your own. Your retirement security is expendable. Your access to health care and college is expendable. Your desire for quality public schools is expendable. Your quest for a modernized transportation system is expendable. All these things, according to the Republican budget, are expendable in order to create a Tax Code even more favorable to the rich and the powerful and the privileged.

This is deeply wrong. The middle class is the backbone of this country, and it is time our leaders showed the backbone to defend it. We need an alternative, a budget that invests in education and opportunity for all Americans, a budget that invests in the retirement security of the middle class and, yes, a budget that does not abandon the less fortunate among us, including seniors and people with disabilities.

As we saw in the 1990s, we can do these things at the same time we are bringing deficits under control. This will require smart, prudent reductions

in spending, and it will require reform of the Tax Code to make it fairer and more equitable, a Tax Code that asks more from those at the top whose incomes have skyrocketed in recent decades.

Let me speak first about spending cuts. I hope I have set an example with my own appropriations subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies of the Appropriations Committee. The fiscal year 2011 spending bill that was enacted last month cuts spending in these areas by almost $6 billion and eliminates dozens of individual programs. I also serve on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. Of course, I believe we can make major spending cuts without harming our national security. I agree with Secretary Gates, who has urged us to terminate the additional C-17 cargo planes and a new amphibious fighting vehicle. I would also save $12 billion by terminating the V-22 Osprey, which even Dick Cheney labeled a turkey and tried to cancel it.

I would also save $80 billion over the next decade by reducing the number of Active-Duty military personnel stationed in Europe and Japan.

Most importantly, it is time to save hundreds of billions of dollars by speeding up the return of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. It costs an estimated $1 million a year to deploy and support each soldier deployed in those wars. That is an extravagance we can do without.

We can also make cuts close to home. I represent a farm State, and I have a strong record of supporting a true farm income safety net. However, in this time of strong commodity prices, record levels of net farm income, the USDA--the Department of Agriculture--is still paying out nearly $5 billion a year in direct payments to farmers, having no relationship to farm income or commodity prices or to what they are even planting. No question, we can save some money here while still making sure farmers have a good solid income safety net protection system.

We also must find additional deficit reduction in the area of health care. Once again, the tea party Republican budget flunks the test. It does not reduce spending on health care, it just shifts costs. It shifts the costs to seniors and others by making them pay most of the bills themselves.

By contrast, the new health reform law actually cuts health care costs. Again, according to CBO, it reduces the deficit by hundreds of billions in the first decade and by more than $1 trillion--the health reform bill cuts the deficit by more than $1 trillion in the second decade, while preserving and strengthening Medicare, not dumping it on the backs of seniors. It does so by rewarding health care providers for the quality of care, not the quantity. It does so by placing a sharp new emphasis on wellness and prevention, keeping people out of the hospital in the first place. It does so by creating an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts, and consumers, to examine patient data and recommend the best ways to reduce wasteful spending and ineffective procedures, while preserving the quality of care.

We can and must build on the health care savings in the Affordable Care Act. But my friends on the other side of the aisle want to repeal the Health Reform Act. But they do not say where they are going to get the money to make up the $1 trillion hole it will blow in the budget in the next decade.

The enormously successful deficit reduction campaign of the 1990s insisted on a balanced approach: spending cuts and revenue increases. Revenue increases were concentrated on the most affluent Americans, those who could most easily afford it, and who benefited the most from the strong economy and the stock market that followed. This must be our template as we raise necessary revenues to reduce future deficits.

By all means, we must allow the Bush era tax breaks for the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans to expire immediately. To put it bluntly, they do not need it, and we cannot afford it. The fact is, high-income Americans did extremely well in the 1990s under the higher rates of the Clinton years, and they will continue to do very well in the future, while contributing their fair share to bringing deficits under control.

I also strongly agree with President Obama's proposal to limit itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans, a reform that would reduce the deficit by $320 billion over 10 years. We need to end the outrageous gimmicks in our Tax Code. Just one example. The ``carried interest'' loophole allows many hedge fund managers to pay taxes at just a 15-percent rate on part of their bonuses, a far lower rate than middle-class Americans pay.

As I said earlier, in one recent year, the top 25 hedge fund mangers took home an average income of $892 million a year each. Let's tax this income the same way we tax the income of teachers and truckdrivers.

In addition, I strongly favor a modest speculation tax on certain types of financial transactions, a .25-percent tax--that is one-quarter of 1 percent tax--on each stock transaction, and a similar tax on options, futures, and swap transactions.

In order to minimize the impact on ordinary American investors, this would exclude transactions in tax-benefited pension accounts such as 401(k)s and IRAs and defined benefit plans.

Some might say, well, this sounds kind of a pie in the sky. Well, Great Britain currently levies a tax on stock transactions that is twice as high as what I am proposing--twice as high as what I am proposing. There is no question that Wall Street can easily bear this modest tax.

John Bogle, the legendary founder of the Vanguard Mutual Fund Group, has long advocated such a speculation tax, a transaction tax, in order to ``slow the rampant speculation that has created such havoc in our financial markets.''

We also should be working to eliminate the tax provisions which promote the shifting of jobs to other countries. The President's budget proposes the elimination of over $100 billion in international tax breaks in this area.

A prudent but aggressive mix of spending reductions and tax increases, combined with stronger economic growth and an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, will bring Federal deficits under control. This will restore the fiscal discipline that was squandered in the years after President Clinton left office.

Best of all, this restored fiscal foundation will allow us to continue making critical investments in transportation and infrastructure, education and energy, investments that will put Americans back to work, strengthen our global competitiveness, and prepare our workforce for the future.

Make no mistake, we have no time to waste. While the United States has been distracted and weakened by foolish wars and speculative bubbles, our competitors have been charging ahead. We have lost major ground to China and to other rapidly growing economies, including Brazil, South Korea. We are playing catchup and the stakes are enormous.

Across America, roads are crumbling, bridges are collapsing. Our formerly world-class interstate highway system is increasingly overwhelmed. Mass transit systems, including Washington's once proud Metro system, have fallen into disrepair. We have a backlog of nearly $300 billion in school construction and modernization.

In infrastructure, we currently invest less than one-third of what Western Europe does as a percentage of GDP. China has tripled its investment in education, and is building hundreds of new colleges and universities at a time when we are slashing school budgets and laying off teachers.

The tea party Republican budget makes this investment gap far worse. It proposes to cut funding for transportation by 25 percent, and for education by 25 percent, and in future years would cut those investments even more deeply. Congressman Ryan has the audacity to tell us this is ``a path to prosperity.'' Common sense tells us it is a bridge to nowhere.

These statistics are not abstractions. Investments in education, infrastructure, and innovation directly translate into more and better jobs, higher incomes, stronger economic growth. That is why we need to get America moving again.

For starters, we need a massive new commitment to infrastructure expansion and modernization, truly a Marshall plan for America. The first step is to adopt a solid 6-year surface transportation reauthorization bill that will allow us to modernize our transportation system.

We also need robust new investments in clean, renewable, domestically produced energy. This will lower our energy costs in the long term, and will reduce our dependence on some of the most unstable countries in the world.

Early in the 20th century, we provided the emerging oil energy with subsidies to accelerate its growth. Today, we must provide similar policies to accelerate America's transition to a clean energy economy, including long-term tax credits for a renewable energy generation, and for infrastructure investments for biofuels, as well as smart grid technologies to enable broader renewable energy use. The goal should be 25 percent of our energy from renewable resources by 2025.

In the field of education, we need major new investments. This begins with Federal support for universal preschool education to ensure that every child is ready to learn and succeed in school. It means an ambitious reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education bill that close the gap between world-class schools in affluent suburbs, and struggling schools in poor urban and rural communities. It means providing resources to ensure that the goal of graduating students who are college and career ready applies equally to students with disabilities.

In closing, in my remarks today I have offered not just an alternative approach to bringing deficits under control but an alternative vision of the role of the Federal Government. Going back to the 1930s, the American people have supported and strengthened an unwritten social contract. That social contract says we will prepare our young and care for our elderly. That social contract says if you work hard and play by the rules, you will be able to rise to the middle class or even beyond. That social contract says a cardinal role of government is to provide a ladder of opportunity, so every American can realistically aspire to the American dream.

In one fell swoop, this tea party Republican budget rips up that social contract. It replaces it with a winner-take-all philosophy, again, that tells struggling, aspiring people and communities across America: I have got mine. You are on your own.

As I said at the outset, the Republican budget is premised on the idea that America is poor and broke, that our best days are behind us, that we have no choice but to slash investment required in order to keep our middle class strong. I totally disagree.

America remains a tremendously wealthy and resourceful nation. We are an optimistic, forward-looking people. We are a purposeful and can-do people, and we expect our government to be on our side, the side of the middle class. We expect it to be an instrument of national greatness and purpose, allowing us to come together to achieve the big things we cannot achieve as individuals, things such as building an interstate highway system, mapping the human genome, one day discovering a cure for cancer.

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 quality public schools and universities, Pell grants, the GI bill, job training. Through our government, we come together to ensure that our citizens have a secure retirement with guaranteed access to health care, and to ensure that the less fortunate among us are not abandoned to the shadows of life.

I am convinced that the great majority of Americans share this positive can-do vision. We refuse to be dragged backward into a winner- take-all society where the privileged and the powerful seize even a greater share of the wealth, as the middle class struggles and declines.

Americans are a tough and resilient and optimistic people. We can and will work together to meet the great challenges of our day. We can and will, indeed we must, restore the middle class as the backbone of a stronger, richer and fairer America.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin.) The Senator from Texas.

Mr. President, as a member of the Senate who has been very interested in and involved with the areas of biomedical research, health care and the improvement of the public health, I want to draw the attention of the Congress and the Nation to the 175th anniversary of the National Library of Medicine, NLM, located at the National Institutes of Health, NIH.

NLM has changed the way scientific and medical information is organized, stored, accessed and disseminated. Throughout its distinguished history, the Library's hallmark has been information innovation, leading to exciting scientific discoveries that ultimately improve the public health.

From its modest beginnings as the Library of the U.S. Army Surgeon General in 1836, the National Library of Medicine has grown to become the world's largest medical library and the producer of electronic information resources used by millions of people around the globe every day.

The NLM has been fortunate to be led by Donald A.B. Lindberg, M.D. since 1984. Under Dr. Lindberg's leadership, the Library has dramatically advanced toward its goal of providing access to biomedical information--anytime, anywhere--for scientists, health professionals, and the public. During Dr. Lindberg's tenure, NLM has embraced the Internet as the primary mode of delivering its services and expanded its portfolio to include genetic sequence data, high-resolution anatomical images, clinical trials information, and a wide array of high-quality information for consumers. One wonders what astonishing developments the next 175 years might bring.

Throughout its 175 years, NLM's work has been vital to facilitating and improving the effectiveness of biomedical research, getting important health information out to health professionals and consumers and conducting groundbreaking informatics research.

Index Medicus, a groundbreaking index of medical journal articles first published in 1879, evolved into MEDLINE, the first marriage of online search technology and nationwide telecommunications, in 1971. Available free of charge since 1997 via the Internet, PubMed/MEDLINE is today the most frequently consulted medical database in the world.

NLM began providing toxicology and environmental health data for use in emergency response and disaster management in the mid-1960s. Today, it produces information services to help health professionals, disaster information specialists, and the general public cope with emergencies and disasters ranging from children swallowing household cleaners to overturned trucks carrying hazardous materials to the widespread effects of hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires, and oil spills.

NLM established librarian training programs and the National Network of Libraries of Medicine in the late 1960s, to provide equal access to the biomedical literature to persons across the country. Now with nearly 6,000 members, NLM and this network of academic, hospital, and public libraries partner with community-based organizations to bring high-quality information services to health professionals and the public--regardless of geographic location, socioeconomic status or level of access to computers and telecommunications.

NLM has conducted and supported training programs and groundbreaking informatics research and development for more than 40 years. The Library, its grantees, and its former trainees continue to play essential roles in the development of electronic health records, health data standards, and the exchange of health information.

NLM is home to the National Center for Biotechnology Information,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Samantha Wessels, Kelly Mormon, and Carolyn Trager of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's proceedings.

Madam President, I join with my good friend, the Senator from Ohio, Senator Brown, in commemorating Workers Memorial Day, which actually was last week. Since we weren't in session then, we wanted to take the time today to commemorate Workers Memorial Day. I am always greatly appreciative of my friend wearing the canary pin on his lapel because, as the Senator from Ohio knows, my father was a coal miner for over 20 years. A lot of people still don't know we had coal mines in Iowa. At one time, back in those days, Iowa was the third largest coal- producing State in the Nation. He worked there a long time ago, before there were safety laws or anything. In fact, most of the time he worked there was before I was born. I can remember him, later on, telling stories about the mines and how many people would be injured or killed--it was sort of an accepted thing--every day, week, or month. People would die and cave-ins would happen. Of course, almost everybody of his generation who worked in those coal mines eventually got miners' cough, as they called it back then--miners' lung or black lung disease, as we know it now. They all virtually had that later on in their lives.

I appreciate my friend from Ohio commemorating Workers Memorial Day.

More than 20 years ago, family members of workers killed on the job joined with safety advocates to launch Workers Memorial Day--a day of remembrance and advocacy. To honor the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration--OSHA, as it is called--April 28 was chosen as Workers Memorial Day. This year, that day takes on special significance because it marks the 40th anniversary of the creation of

Madam President, when most people think of how our government works, they tend to think of the elected officials, the President, Senators, House Members, and of the institutions in which they serve. However, in order for elected officials to fulfill their constitutional duties, Members of Congress rely on many individuals and institutions whose work is vital to the basic functions of government. These are individuals who often work in relative obscurity, but whose contributions are often no less important than those of the more visible actors and institutions who stand before the public.

I rise today to recognize one such individual who, over his decades- long career of service at the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research branch of the U.S. Congress, has had provided a profound and lasting contribution to the U.S. Congress. That individual, Joe Richardson, the food and nutrition policy analyst of CRS, will soon be leaving CRS and I, for one, feel that it is not only important, but vital, for Joe to be recognized for his decades of public service to the U.S. Congress and to the American public.

As a long-time member of the Agriculture Committee, on which I served as both the chair and ranking Democrat on several occasions, my staff and I relied heavily on Joe Richardson on numerous occasions. He provided technical assistance and professional judgment in the formulation of the nutrition title of the 2002 and 2007 farm bills, and also played a key role in the committee's successful enactment of the 2004 and 2010 child nutrition reauthorization. In each of these cases, Joe went above and beyond the call of duty--in many cases enduring, like the rest of us, long, late night conference committee meetings that would carry on for weeks, even months. As a result of his efforts, I can say with confidence that, absent Joe's efforts, the legislation that we produced would not have been nearly as sound. More importantly, because of Joe's help, each of these pieces of legislation succeeded in its core mission--helping to ensure that millions of Americans are able to obtain a sufficient and nutritious diet.

Each of us, in one way or another, takes for granted the work of others as we do our own jobs. This is not because their efforts are not noticeable, but rather, because the efforts are so consistent and steadfast, carried out with humility and without any expectation of praise or recognition. This is exactly how Joe has carried out his duties over the years. But I would be remiss in not taking the opportunity to stand up and thank Joe for his truly remarkable service to the Congressional Research Service, to Congress, and to the country. I have no doubt, after such long service, that moving on to new opportunities and challenges is not without its bittersweet moments for Joe. But I know that Joe can move on to these challenges secure in his knowledge that he has discharged his duties with the utmost professionalism and competence. He has been a pillar of the food and nutrition assistance policy community for years. For his service, I am grateful.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Blake Tice Taylor, Emily Wei, and Lynae Gruber of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's proceedings.

Mr. President, as we seek to ensure that our students have the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in college and careers, we must revisit how learning time is structured to help them meet the ever-rising expectations and ever-growing demands of the 21st century global economy. The Time for Innovation Matters in Education Act, or TIME Act, would provide high-need schools with the resources they need to expand the school day, week, or year so students have more time to learn. By providing additional time for more in-depth and rigorous learning opportunities in core and other academic subjects, as well as enrichment activities that contribute to a well-rounded education, we can increase students' academic engagement and outcomes to help close our nation's achievement gap. That is why I am pleased to introduce this legislation, which my colleague Rep. Donald Payne will introduce in the House, today.

Under our present school calendar, most American students spend 6 hours a day for 180 days in school each year. This outdated calendar was designed to meet the needs of a farm- and factory-based economy in the early 20th century, and fails to provide students with the learning time needed to complete a rigorous curriculum and meet high standards. In fact, American students spend about 30 percent less time in school than students in other leading nations, leaving American students at a competitive disadvantage. For example, students in China, Japan, and South Korea attend school 40 days more on average than American students and significantly outperform American students on average in math and science. To strengthen our competitiveness and remain a global leader, we must increase how much learning time we provide our students, especially our at-risk students.

The TIME Act would give schools the flexibility to comprehensively redesign and expand their schedules and increase learning time by at least 30 percent to meet students' diverse academic needs and interests. The TIME Act's goal is not merely to encourage schools to add more time at the end of the day, but to take a close look at how they use their time and to redesign the entire school schedule to create a program or curriculum with teaching and learning opportunities to better meet students' needs. This legislation encourages strong partnerships between schools and community partners such as community- based organizations, institutions of higher education, and cultural organizations to help provide students with a broader and richer learning experience, which should include music, fine arts, and physical education--important pursuits that all too often lose ground in our schools due to a focus on reading and math.

Many schools around the country have expanded learning time in their calendars with promising results, such as Boston's Clarence Edwards Middle School, which was one of the lowest-performing schools just a few years ago. But in only three years of expanded learning time, dedicated school leaders and teachers were able to redesign and transform the school into one of the city's and state's highest- performing schools. Students, particularly those who are furthest behind, benefit from more time for learning, and programs that significantly increase the total number of hours in a regular school schedule lead to gains in student academic achievement. In 2006, minority students and students with disabilities in Clarence Edwards scored far below the state averages in English and math, and while English language learners met state averages in math, none were proficient in English. By 2009, every subgroup met or outperformed state averages, in most cases by wide margins.

According to research, expanded learning time is especially important for our high-need students. Students in disadvantaged families show a drop-off in learning over long summer recesses compared to their higher-income classmates, and they fall farther behind each year. These students are also less likely to have parents with the time and resources to help them with their school work. Expanded learning time can help these students accelerate gains and catch up on their learning gaps by expanding the school year and shortening summer recess. In addition to those at risk of falling behind, more time for learning helps students who are on grade level get ahead by providing additional time for enrichment and a broader curriculum. Additional time also enables more students to participate in experiential and interactive learning, internships, and other work-

based and service learning opportunities in their schools and communities, all of which help keep students engaged in school and make school more relevant.

Equally important, expanded learning time initiatives provide teachers with increased opportunities to work collaboratively and to participate in common planning, within and across grades and subjects, to improve instruction, and, in turn, increase student achievement. This extra time in the school schedule empowers teachers to complete the curriculum, meet the needs of all students, and collaborate with colleagues. The TIME Act requires grantees to design comprehensive plans, in collaboration with teachers, to encompass professional development that focuses on changes in teaching practices and curriculum delivery that will result in improved student academic achievement as well as student engagement and success.

To accurately assess the difference these programs make, the TIME Act calls for a rigorous evaluation that will measure several critical performance indicators. We need to know which models and practices produce the best outcomes for students and this evaluation will ensure that we identify and disseminate them nationwide. As we reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, I am committed to helping communities offer expanded learning time so that more students can succeed.

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

Mr. President, as we seek to ensure that our students have the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in college and careers, we must revisit how learning time is structured to help them meet the ever-rising expectations and ever-growing demands of the 21st century global economy. The Time for Innovation Matters in Education Act, or TIME Act, would provide high-need schools with the resources they need to expand the school day, week, or year so students have more time to learn. By providing additional time for more in-depth and rigorous learning opportunities in core and other academic subjects, as well as enrichment activities that contribute to a well-rounded education, we can increase students' academic engagement and outcomes to help close our nation's achievement gap. That is why I am pleased to introduce this legislation, which my colleague Rep. Donald Payne will introduce in the House, today.

Under our present school calendar, most American students spend 6 hours a day for 180 days in school each year. This outdated calendar was designed to meet the needs of a farm- and factory-based economy in the early 20th century, and fails to provide students with the learning time needed to complete a rigorous curriculum and meet high standards. In fact, American students spend about 30 percent less time in school than students in other leading nations, leaving American students at a competitive disadvantage. For example, students in China, Japan, and South Korea attend school 40 days more on average than American students and significantly outperform American students on average in math and science. To strengthen our competitiveness and remain a global leader, we must increase how much learning time we provide our students, especially our at-risk students.

The TIME Act would give schools the flexibility to comprehensively redesign and expand their schedules and increase learning time by at least 30 percent to meet students' diverse academic needs and interests. The TIME Act's goal is not merely to encourage schools to add more time at the end of the day, but to take a close look at how they use their time and to redesign the entire school schedule to create a program or curriculum with teaching and learning opportunities to better meet students' needs. This legislation encourages strong partnerships between schools and community partners such as community- based organizations, institutions of higher education, and cultural organizations to help provide students with a broader and richer learning experience, which should include music, fine arts, and physical education--important pursuits that all too often lose ground in our schools due to a focus on reading and math.

Many schools around the country have expanded learning time in their calendars with promising results, such as Boston's Clarence Edwards Middle School, which was one of the lowest-performing schools just a few years ago. But in only three years of expanded learning time, dedicated school leaders and teachers were able to redesign and transform the school into one of the city's and state's highest- performing schools. Students, particularly those who are furthest behind, benefit from more time for learning, and programs that significantly increase the total number of hours in a regular school schedule lead to gains in student academic achievement. In 2006, minority students and students with disabilities in Clarence Edwards scored far below the state averages in English and math, and while English language learners met state averages in math, none were proficient in English. By 2009, every subgroup met or outperformed state averages, in most cases by wide margins.

According to research, expanded learning time is especially important for our high-need students. Students in disadvantaged families show a drop-off in learning over long summer recesses compared to their higher-income classmates, and they fall farther behind each year. These students are also less likely to have parents with the time and resources to help them with their school work. Expanded learning time can help these students accelerate gains and catch up on their learning gaps by expanding the school year and shortening summer recess. In addition to those at risk of falling behind, more time for learning helps students who are on grade level get ahead by providing additional time for enrichment and a broader curriculum. Additional time also enables more students to participate in experiential and interactive learning, internships, and other work-

based and service learning opportunities in their schools and communities, all of which help keep students engaged in school and make school more relevant.

Equally important, expanded learning time initiatives provide teachers with increased opportunities to work collaboratively and to participate in common planning, within and across grades and subjects, to improve instruction, and, in turn, increase student achievement. This extra time in the school schedule empowers teachers to complete the curriculum, meet the needs of all students, and collaborate with colleagues. The TIME Act requires grantees to design comprehensive plans, in collaboration with teachers, to encompass professional development that focuses on changes in teaching practices and curriculum delivery that will result in improved student academic achievement as well as student engagement and success.

To accurately assess the difference these programs make, the TIME Act calls for a rigorous evaluation that will measure several critical performance indicators. We need to know which models and practices produce the best outcomes for students and this evaluation will ensure that we identify and disseminate them nationwide. As we reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, I am committed to helping communities offer expanded learning time so that more students can succeed.

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

Madam President, the Senate will have before it today or tomorrow, depending upon the flow around here, two very misguided bills. This will come about when we have our budget come up for a vote. Under an agreement to get that budget up, we are going to have a vote on two separate bills. One bill would totally repeal and defund the affordable care act--the health care reform bill we passed--and the other one would prevent funding for Planned Parenthood. So I wish to take a few minutes on the floor of the Senate to speak about how misguided these two bills are.

First, let me talk about the bill that would defund the affordable care act. This bill we will be voting on will prohibit any funds appropriated this year and any funds appropriated in any prior year from being used to carry out the affordable care act. This would remove the engine from health care reform while the train is steaming down the track.

So, again, why are we voting on this? The reason is, Republicans have tried a frontal assault on the affordable care act--a debate on the merits--and they failed. This body voted down Senator McConnell's amendment to the FAA authorization bill that would have repealed health reform in its entirety. But I guess what we can't do directly, we try to do indirectly. So now the Republicans are trying to undermine health reform by other means, such as defunding it.

Well, this strategy only makes sense if you are absolutely obsessed-- obsessed--with tearing down health care reform. Make no mistake about it, this bill is the equivalent of repeal. By depriving the bill of all funding, it would turn back the clock on all we have accomplished over the past year.

It would take us back to the bad old days, when insurance companies were in the driver's seat, telling us what kinds of health care we are entitled to and when we are entitled to it.

Instead of protecting all Americans against arbitrary limits on coverage, repeal would take us back to the days when insurance companies could turn off our coverage just when we are the sickest. That would hurt families such as the Grasshoffs from Texas, who testified before my committee earlier this year. They were unable to find coverage that would pay for their son's hemophilia treatment until the affordable care act banned lifetime limits.

Instead of allowing young people starting a new job or a new business or going off to school to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26, repeal would make them fend for themselves in a chaotic market that offers too little coverage for too much money. That would hurt folks such as Emily Schlichting, who suffers from a rare autoimmune disorder that would make her uninsurable in the bad old days. But because of the affordable care act, she is able to stay on her parents' policy until she is 26. Yet at a HELP Committee hearing in January--this is Emily, a wonderful young woman--she said:

Young people are the future of this country and we are the

most affected by the reform--we're the generation that is

most uninsured. We need the Affordable Care Act because it is

literally an investment in the future of this country.

It would also hurt folks such as Carol in Ankeny, IA, whose 19-year- old daughter was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes 9 years ago. Thanks to the affordable care act, Carol doesn't have to worry about her daughter's preexisting condition, disqualifying her for insurance coverage, and she can stay on her parents' health insurance coverage after college.

Carol also doesn't have to worry about the cost of her daughter's care running up against the lifetime cap that would be imposed by an insurance

company. Health care reform banned those limits. Carol wrote me a very nice letter to say thank you for doing the right thing.

Instead of protecting nearly half of nonelderly Americans who have preexisting conditions--such as high blood pressure, diabetes or heart disease--from denial of coverage, repeal would put insurance companies back in the driver's seat, picking and choosing whom to cover.

Instead of helping small businesses, struggling in this recession with the cost of insurance premiums, repeal of the affordable care act would take away $40 billion in tax credits that reduce premiums for small businesses.

Instead of helping all Americans prevent illness or disease by providing free preventive services such as mammograms and colonoscopies, repeal would allow insurers to charge expensive copays for these important services, thus discouraging people from getting their colonoscopies or mammogram screenings.

If we pass this bill--this bill to defund the affordable care act-- Congress will turn its back on America's seniors, tossing our hard-won improvements in Medicare benefits and damaging the program's fiscal health. It would reopen the Medicare Part D doughnut hole, exposing millions of seniors to the full cost of drugs when they need the most assistance. Repealing the affordable care act would increase seniors' drug prices, on average, by more than $800 this year and $3,500 over the next 10 years.

Repeal would roll back the unprecedented investment the affordable care act makes in Medicare fraud prevention. Turning back the affordable care act would hurt seniors' access to health care in rural areas by eliminating incentive payments that are in the affordable care act paid to rural primary care providers.

Repealing--or defunding, as this bill would do--the affordable care act would roll back improvements to Medicare payment policy, coordination, and efficiency that extends the life of the Medicare trust fund by a decade. In addition, Secretary Sebelius has informed us that payments to Medicare providers would be significantly disrupted by this bill, which again will defund the affordable care act.

Finally, we come to the part of this debate even Alice in Wonderland would have a tough time understanding. The House Republicans have played the Washington stage for all it is worth over the last few weeks, making great solemn speeches to the balconies and to the audiences about the deficit and the debt. But as a condition for agreeing to fund the government for the remainder of this year, what are they demanding? They want to defund and, thus, repeal the affordable care act--one of the best and biggest deficit-reducing measures in decades.

The Affordable Care Act reduces the deficit by $210 billion in the next 10 years, more than $1 trillion in the next 10 years. Again, here is a chart that shows that. In the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the Affordable Care Act will reduce the deficit by $210 billion. Therefore, if you repeal it you would increase the deficit by $210 billion.

Here is where the real savings come. In the next decade the Congressional Budget Office says the Affordable Care Act will reduce the deficit by $1 trillion. So if you defund it, as this bill would do, you will increase the deficit by $1 trillion. That is what the Republicans want, they want to absolutely increase the deficit. They must, because they want to do away with the Affordable Care Act.

Let me get this straight. The Republicans are proposing to reduce the deficit by--increasing the deficits? As I said, somehow I have a feeling when I hear that, we are not in Kansas any longer. This is ``Alice in Wonderland'' kind of thinking.

We have to stop the silly game. This debate is not about deficit reduction, it is about tearing down health reform, no matter what. No matter if it does increase the deficit, get rid of it, get rid of health reform. It is about giving control back to wealthy, powerful health insurance companies that can raise your rates, deny you benefits, and make increasingly more profit.

Nothing makes the nature of the agenda of my friends on the Republican side more clear than the 2012 proposed budget released by the Republican House Budget Committee chairman last week. The Republican budget plan is very simple: a massive transfer of wealth from low-and middle-income Americans to the wealthiest in our country. Two-thirds of the budget savings in the Republican budget proposal come from drastically cutting programs that serve those with modest means, while permanently extending President Bush's tax cuts for the rich.

How is this massive wealth shift paid for? They would repeal the majority of the Affordable Care Act, taking coverage away from more than 32 million Americans who would be covered under current law. Starting in 2022, the Republican budget proposal eliminates Medicare as we know it, turning over the program to private health insurance companies. Instead of enrolling seniors in Medicare, the Republicans' plan would give them a voucher to go out and buy private insurance coverage on the open market. Since the voucher would not keep up with rising medical costs, seniors would fall farther and farther behind.

The Congressional Budget Office has said this would more than double out-of-pocket costs for seniors entering the program in 2022; it would triple the costs by 2030. Where would that money go? To the private health insurance industry. That sounds kind of familiar, doesn't it?

The Republicans' obsession with repealing the new health reform law is not based on budgetary considerations. It is based strictly on ideology. In 1965, President Johnson and this Congress passed Medicare, ensuring seniors access to decent health care. Republicans fought it bitterly then and 45 years later they are still trying to undo it. Here they go again. The choice before us is to go forward or to be dragged backward. Let us come together as a united American people, create a reformed health care system that works not just for the healthy and the wealthy but for all Americans.

There is a second bill we will be voting on in conjunction with the budget. The Republicans insisted on this in order to have a vote on the budget. It is equally as misguided and as dangerous, I think, as the other bill. This second bill would prohibit a law-abiding and extraordinarily successful organization from participating in fair competition for Federal funding. This entity would, of course, be Planned Parenthood.

Again, let's be clear what this bill is not about. It is not about the need to prevent Federal funds from being used to pay for abortions. Longstanding rules under the title X program already strictly prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. What is more, every appropriations bill for the last two decades has stated that no funds can be used for any abortion.

This bill is not about abortion. It is about banning a specific organization from even competing for Federal funds, simply because some people don't agree with that organization. This would create a very disturbing and dangerous precedent. When Congress creates a program, it typically specifies rules or criteria for participation in that program. Anyone who or any organization that agrees to play by these rules and criteria is eligible to compete. Planned Parenthood is playing by the rules. That is one reason it is one of the most widely respected health care providers in the United States.

Of 5.2 million women served every year by the title X program, 1 out of 3, 31 percent, receive care at Planned Parenthood health centers. If someone can show me a specific clinic that is not following the rules, by all means take away their funding. But that is not what this bill does. This bill says Planned Parenthood as an entity would be banned from even competing to provide services under title X, despite the fact that they conform to all of the rules of the program.

It doesn't only ban Planned Parenthood from offering family planning services. That is one aspect of what Planned Parenthood does. But this bill would turn away nearly 1 million women a year who receive cervical cancer screenings through Planned Parenthood clinical services, as well as 830,000 women every year who get breast exams at Planned Parenthood clinical services. They would turn away countless hundreds of thousands

of women and men who receive physical exams and immunizations at Planned Parenthood clinical services.

My office has been deluged by e-mails and phone calls from Iowans and other Americans who oppose this misguided effort to ban Planned Parenthood from receiving funding under title X. I stand with them in support of the important services these clinics provide to women and men throughout the country.

A constituent of mine writes:

Dear Senator Harkin,

I want to let you know that cutting funds to Planned

Parenthood will jeopardize the lives of many of the women and

some of the men who go there for basic reproductive health

screenings. I say this with confidence, as Planned Parenthood

was the only clinic I could afford 10 years ago, to obtain

yearly Pap smears. It was Planned Parenthood that found my

cervical cancer and referred me to a specialist for

treatment. Due to the existence and actions of Planned

Parenthood, I am alive today as a healthy and contributing

member of society. I work with undergraduate and graduate

students, and several of them have mentioned that Planned

Parenthood was their only option for affordable screenings. .

. . Please ensure that government funding will be allocated

to Planned Parenthood. Please do not have young or

socioeconomically strapped women potentially lose their life

over a cancer that is remedied when caught in its early

stages.

That was the end of her letter. We need to listen to voices such as this. We need to listen to the women of America who rely on Planned Parenthood.

Finally, I believe this bill goes to the heart of whether we can reach common ground on something on which we should all agree, the need to find ways to reduce the need for abortions in America. Let me say at the outset I strongly believe that we must preserve the right of every woman to her own reproductive choices that exist under the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. But to reduce the number of abortions we must prevent unwanted pregnancies, just as we must also support women who want to carry their pregnancies to term. That is precisely what title X funding accomplishes. Family planning services at title X health centers, including Planned Parenthood, prevent an estimated 973,000 unintended pregnancies a year and this in turn obviates what a woman might turn to in desperation, for hundreds of thousands of abortions every year.

Unfortunately, during the debate on Planned Parenthood in recent days we have heard many wild and inaccurate claims about the work of this dedicated organization. On that score, I have always agreed with my former colleague, the late Senator Pat Moynihan, who said, ``People are entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to their own facts.'' Last week our distinguished colleague, the junior Senator from Arizona, stood here on the floor of the Senate and stated that abortion ``is well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does.'' He stated it right here on the Senate floor, the junior Senator from Arizona.

Of course that is grossly inaccurate. Planned Parenthood spends the overwhelming majority of its resources keeping women healthy and preventing the need for abortion in the first place. The fact--the fact--is that just 3 percent of Planned Parenthood services are related to abortion.

When news organizations asked the office of the Senator from Arizona for evidence of his claim, a spokesperson bizarrely stated: ``His remark was not intended to be a factual statement.'' What was it intended to be? The floor of the Senate is not the place for destructive and false assertions, especially when used to argue that an organization should be redlined and singled out for discrimination.

For the record, Planned Parenthood is one of the most respected women's health organizations in the United States. It courageously defends the right of women in America to make informed, independent decisions about their health and family planning. By providing women with counsel and contraception, Planned Parenthood prevents countless unwanted pregnancies and thereby reduces the number of abortions in this country. Lest there be any misunderstanding, I intend this as a factual statement.

Let me conclude by making clear that the one certain impact of this bill, if it were passed, would be to increase the number of abortions in America. This bill would dramatically erode the effectiveness of title X in preventing unintended pregnancies, preventing sexually transmitted infections, detecting cancers early, keeping people healthy through quality preventive care. It would have this impact because this misguided bill would ban an extraordinarily successful organization, Planned Parenthood, from providing these services.

On this bill we have to say no to unintended pregnancies and unnecessary abortions; say no to this misguided and counterproductive bill.

We will have this vote on the budget but then we have these two side votes, one that would defund the Affordable Care Act and send us back to the bad old days of health insurance companies deciding who gets what when at insanely big profits to them; second, it would ban Planned Parenthood from even applying to be a provider of health resources and services to 5.2 million women every year in this country.

I hope that Congress, the Senate, will rise above these misguided bills, will rise above unfactual assertions made on the floor of the Senate no matter how they were intended, and that we will make sure Planned Parenthood can continue to provide the vital services it does in this country.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Megan Cheney, Nicole Miya Ogawa, and Jan Spreitzenbarth of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's session.

Mr. President, today Americans observe Equal Pay Day--the date that marks the extra days that women must work into 2011 in order to equal what men earned in 2010. On this day, I am proud to introduce the Fair Pay Act of 2011, a bill I have introduced every Congress since 1996.

In 1963, Congress enacted the Equal Pay Act to end unfair discrimination against women in the workforce. While we have made progress toward this important goal, nearly half a century later, too many women still do not get paid what men do for the same or nearly the same work. On average, a woman makes only 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes. That translates into an average of $400,000 over her lifetime that a woman loses because of unequal pay practices. The circumstances are even worse for Latinas and women of color.

This is wrong, it is unjust, and it threatens the economic security of our families. The fact is millions of Americans are dependent on a woman's pay-check just to get by, to put food on the table, pay for child care, and deal with rising health care bills. Two-thirds of mothers bring home at least a quarter of their family's earnings. In many families, a woman is the sole breadwinner.

The evidence shows that discrimination accounts for much of the pay gap, and our laws have not done enough to prevent this discrimination from occurring. That is why passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was a critical first step, and why it is important to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, introduced today by Senator Mikulski and Representative DeLauro, of which I am a proud original cosponsor. There are too many loopholes and barriers to effective enforcement of our existing laws. We need to strengthen penalties and give women the tools they need to confront discrimination.

At the same time, we must recognize that the problem of unequal pay goes beyond insidious discrimination. As a nation, we unjustly devalue jobs traditionally performed by women, even when they require comparable skills to jobs traditionally performed by men.

Today, millions of female-dominated jobs--for example, social workers, teachers, child care workers and nurses--are equivalent in skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions to similar jobs dominated by men. But, the female-dominated jobs pay significantly less. This is inexplicable. Why is a housekeeper worth less than a janitor? Why is a parking meter reader worth less than an electrical meter reader? Why is a social worker worth less than a probation officer?

To address this more subtle, deep-rooted discrimination, today I am joining with Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton to introduce the Fair Pay Act, which will ensure that employers provide equal pay for jobs that are equivalent in skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions.

This important legislation would also require employers to publicly disclose their job categories and their pay scales, without requiring specific information on individual employees. If we give women information about what their male colleagues are earning, they can negotiate a better deal for themselves in the workplace.

Right now, women who believe they are the victim of pay discrimination must file a lawsuit and endure a drawn-out legal discovery process to find out whether they make less than the man working beside them. With pay statistics readily available, this expensive process could be avoided.

The number of lawsuits would surely go down if employees could see up front whether they are being treated fairly. In fact, I once asked Lilly Ledbetter: if the Fair Pay Act had been law, would it have averted her wage discrimination case? She said that with the information about pay scales that the bill provides, she would have known that she was a victim of discrimination and could have tried to address the problem sooner, rather than suffering a lifelong drop in her earnings and a trip all the way to the Supreme Court to try to make things right.

On this Equal Pay Day, let us make sure that what happened to Lilly never happens again by recommitting to eliminate discrimination in the workplace and make equal pay for equal work a reality. America's working women and the families that rely on them deserve fairness on the job. Hopefully, soon, we can achieve true equality in the workplace so there is no need to commemorate equal pay day any more.

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