Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Amy Groshong, Rosie Romano, and Taylor Trovillon of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Mr. President, there is one point on which every Senator agrees, Democrats and Republicans alike: The economic recovery is starting to gain strength, and it is time to focus our attention on reducing deficits and restoring fiscal discipline. The current deficits are unsustainable and present a very real danger to our Nation's future economic prosperity; however, there is sharp disagreement as to how best to achieve that shared goal.

Along with other Democratic Senators, I advocate a balanced approach that includes spending cuts and necessary revenue increases while continuing to make crucial investments in education, infrastructure, and research, the investments that are absolutely essential if we are going to stay competitive in a global economy. We know this approach can work because it is what we did under President Clinton's leadership in the 1990s. That budget at that time created large surpluses and put us on the track to completely eliminating the national debt within a decade. It also created a brief era of shared prosperity with 22 million new jobs and 116 consecutive months of economic expansion.

By contrast most Republican Senators favor an approach that I consider to be unbalanced, unfair, and highly unlikely to succeed. We have now had nearly a week to evaluate the House Republicans' budget proposal for 2012 and beyond--the so-called Ryan budget. Let's look at what this truly radical budget plan would do.

It completely dismantles Medicare and Medicaid.

It concentrates two-thirds of its spending cuts on programs serving the most disadvantaged people in our society, including seniors and people with disabilities, even as it preserves huge subsidies for special interests.

It exempts corporations and wealthy individuals from shared sacrifice in order to bring deficits under control. To the contrary, this Republican tea party plan locks in the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy-- tax cuts that were passed 10 years ago when we were looking at budget surpluses as far as the eye could see.

Well, under our present circumstances, the wealthy don't need these tax breaks, and we can't afford them. This budget of Mr. Ryan's and Republicans slashes the tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. That is the lowest level since 1931. Indeed, this so-called deficit reduction plan includes tax cuts that would cost $2.9 trillion over the next 10 years compared to the CBO baseline, and that is according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Institute.

This tea party budget plan repeals the new health reform law, stripping 34 million nonelderly Americans of health coverage and eliminating all the consumer protections in the law, including the ban on discrimination based on preexisting conditions.

This budget of the Republicans repeals the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law, allowing financial manipulators to return to the same reckless practices that led to the financial collapse, to the great recession, and to much of our current huge budget deficits.

This budget cuts the maximum Pell grant award even as more students are enrolling in higher education to give themselves the skills they need for the modern economy.

How bizarre that several pundits have called this Republican tea party budget plan ``courageous.'' There is nothing courageous about targeting the most vulnerable people in our society for the overwhelming share of cuts. There is nothing courageous about giving another huge tax cut bonanza to those who have seen their incomes skyrocket in recent years. There is nothing courageous about destroying the retirement security of tens of millions of American seniors, including dismantling Medicare and hacking away at Social Security. There is nothing courageous about gutting Medicaid, the program that millions of seniors and people with disabilities depend on to pay for care such as nursing home care or home health aids.

Let's be clear. There is nothing courageous in this Republican tea party budget. To the contrary, I suggest it is a cowardly budget. It is a bully's budget. In this budget the powerful and the privilege attack the weak and the vulnerable.

We all understand what is going on. Republicans are seizing on the budget crisis as a pretext for ramming through a longstanding ideological wish list. At the State level--in Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, and elsewhere--Republicans are using the budget crisis as a pretext for an assault on public workers, including teachers and firefighters and others. On Capitol Hill they are using it to try

to, as I said, defund health care reform, to destroy Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, and, yes, to cut tax rates even more deeply for corporations and the wealthiest in our society.

This tea party budget is an unprecedented assault on middle-class and working Americans. It would drive down Americans' standard of living, shred the economic safety net, reduce access to health care and higher education, and do grave damage to our public schools and their ability to prepare the next generation for the jobs of the future.

Make no mistake. It is not about reducing budget deficits. Republican Governors and Republicans in Congress are demanding budget cuts to programs on which the middle class rely at the same time they continue to push for tax cuts for large corporations and the wealthy.

Call this what it is: Republicans have openly declared class warfare. Republican Governors have the gall to attack teachers, firefighters, police officers, and other public employees as--in the words of Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels--``the privileged elite''--the privileged elite.

Our police, our firefighters, our public employees are the privileged elite? Why? Well, I suppose because they actually have pensions. They have decent jobs, decent wages, access to health care. For heaven's sake, we shouldn't be dragging people down because they have a middle- class life. We should be working day and night to give every American a decent standard of living, to shore up the middle class rather than tearing it down.

I suppose, to Governor Daniels and others, if the middle class are the privileged elite, then I guess the middle class today are those who are making minimum wage, working at dead-end jobs. Is that the new middle class?

Meanwhile, as Republicans at the State and national level go after the health care and retirement security of middle-class Americans-- again, they are going all out to pass new tax breaks for those who have already been showered with tremendous breaks in the past. The tax cuts the congressional Republicans secured in December--that is what was passed in December--will add a whopping $354 billion to the deficit this year and even more next year. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the tax cuts in the new House budget would cost the Treasury $2.9 trillion over 10 years. Yet now these very same Republicans claim they are worried about the deficit.

Well, they are not fooling anyone. This is not about deficit reduction, it is about ideology. Republicans are taking a meat ax to programs for the middle class--everything from cancer research to education to transportation to health care--and they are gutting the safety net for the elderly, the poor, and people with disabilities.

It is the same old GOP game plan: Give huge, unaffordable tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy while enacting budget cuts that assist the middle class and the most vulnerable.

This new tea party Republican budget gives new meaning to the word ``extreme.'' Let's look at what they have proposed. This budget dismantles Medicare, creating a new private voucher program so future seniors would have to pay out of pocket for many lifesaving health care costs. It does nothing to control health care costs. It simply shifts the costs to the elderly individuals.

Get this: The Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2030, under the Republican budget plan, seniors would have to pay two-thirds of the cost of their health coverage.

Future seniors would see their out-of-pocket costs more than double to $12,500 a year. At the same time, the benefits would be cut in half--in just 20 years. Think about that. People who are now in their forties, looking to when they get on Medicare, will have their benefits cut in half, but they will pay twice as much for it under the voucher system.

This tea party Republican budget reopens the prescription drug doughnut hole which we have set in motion to close under the affordable care act. That would require seniors to pay $3,600 a year more for prescription drugs.

The Republican tea party block grants Medicaid and cuts $1 trillion in health care services, which would end vital services disabled Americans depend on, such as coverage for home health aides, assistance services so they can get a job, or going to a nursing home if that is the only option. By shifting costs to the States, this would worsen our State budget deficits.

The Republican budget proposal doesn't stop at dismantling the safety net and programs seniors rely on for a secure retirement. This budget plan makes profound and destructive cuts to the entire range of programs that underpin the American middle-class standard of living, everything from education, student grants and loans, law enforcement, clean air and clean water, food safety, biomedical research, highways, bridges, and infrastructure--in short, all of the programs and services middle-class Americans rely on for a decent way of life and the promise that enhances the ability of the private sector to grow and provide more jobs.

The Republican assault on the middle class is breathtaking both in scope and depth. It could not come at a worse time for working Americans, who are already under enormous strain. It is no secret that people are working harder and longer than ever before, but they still can't seem to meet the cost of basic, everyday needs such as education, transportation, and housing, let alone save enough to support themselves in their old age. Even before the great recession, working people weren't sharing in our Nation's prosperity.

The shared prosperity of the years after World War II created an expanding middle class, a soaring standard of living. But these wages-- real wages--peaked in the 1970s, and they have been stagnant ever since. Think about that. They peaked in about 1979. Since 1979, real wages have not gone up. You wonder why middle-class Americans are so upset about what is going on. They realize this. They may not be able to put it in exact language, but I can tell you that middle-class families know what has happened to them. They know they have lost their earning power.

Middle-class jobs are also being shipped overseas--a trend actually encouraged by our Tax Code. Income inequality in America is reaching Third-World levels. Job security, savings, and pensions are disappearing, along with the American dream.

Now, with working Americans barely making ends meet, just barely holding on to a decent way of life, the Republicans have proposed a budget--make no mistake--that will destroy what is left of the middle class in this country. I could not disagree more strenuously with this approach. The future of our Nation depends on our ability to ensure that everybody benefits from economic growth. It means putting policies into place that build a strong and vibrant middle class with good jobs, fair wages, and good benefits. That is the America I want to see--one where people who work hard and play by the rules can live a decent life. Tragically, the tea party budget plan would take us in exactly the opposite direction. It would gut the whole range of programs that support the middle class in this country. It would dismantle the safety net for those with disabilities and for the poor--a safety net that has been painstakingly created over the last 80 years.

This Republican budget plan not only turns the clock back to before the Great Society programs of Pell grants, housing, and support for people in the middle class, it would turn it back to even before the New Deal. It would gut all Federal support that is basic for education. It would all but eliminate Federal support for infrastructure, which means we will fall even further behind China and the European Union, which are investing massively in everything from ultramodern ports, to high-speed rail, to state-of-the-art roads and bridges. Right now, China is investing between 8 and 10 percent of its GDP in infrastructure. We are at 2 percent and going down.

Indeed, this tea party budget aims to dismantle the Federal Government as we know it. It proposes to shrink discretionary spending--including defense--and other minor mandatory program spending from 12 percent of GDP last year to 6 percent of GDP in 2022 and to just 3.5 percent of GDP per year in the long run. Think about that. It would shrink discretionary spending and other mandatory spending from 12 percent of the budget last year to about 3.5 percent of the budget over the

long run. Well, that is about the same level of Federal spending during the Presidency of Calvin Coolidge, nearly a century ago, when defense spending was very small and there was very little, if any, support for education and the infrastructure of our country. We don't live in the era of Calvin Coolidge any longer, but this budget would take us back to that time.

Adding insult to injury, this budget plan makes a mockery of the concept of shared sacrifice to reduce deficits. Apparently, it wasn't enough to bail out the Wall Street bankers whose reckless gambling and risk-taking created the great recession; now we are being asked to cut programs for working Americans so that Wall Street can get another giant tax cut.

This Republican tea party budget is built on bad priorities, bad policy, and just plain bad values. As columnist E.J. Dionne points out, Americans can see ``how radical the new conservatives in Washington are, and the extent to which some politicians would transfer even more resources from the have-nots and the have-a-littles to the have-a- lots.''

Going back to the 1930s, the American people have supported and strengthened an unwritten social contract. That social contract says that we will prepare our young, care for our elderly, and build a safety net for those who fall, who become disabled or sick. That unwritten social contract says that 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 that if you start at the bottom, you will have a ladder of opportunity to the middle class. It says that a cardinal rule of government is to provide a ladder of opportunity so that every American can realistically aspire to the American dream.

But in one fell swoop, this Republican budget rips up that social contract. It replaces it with a winner-takes-all philosophy that tells struggling, aspiring people and communities across America: You are on your own.

If you are a low-income high school student who can only afford college with the help of a generous Pell grant, this budget says: Tough luck. You are on your own.

If you are a working couple with two kids who can't scrape together enough money to purchase decent health insurance, this budget says: Tough luck. You are on your own.

If you are a poor rural community that needs assistance to pay for a new sewer system or a flood control project, this budget says: Tough luck. You are on your own.

If you are a poor, urban community struggling to find funding to create high-quality K-12 public schools for your children, this budget says: Tough luck. You are on your own.

If you are a retiree with serious health problems and can't afford the big out-of-pocket costs in this Republican plan to do away with Medicare or if your health insurance company abruptly cancels your policy, this budget says: Tough luck. You are on your own.

If you are a low-income family who counts on Federal nutrition assistance and you are trying to decide whether to spend scarce dollars on food or medicine, this budget says: Tough luck. You are on your own.

Mr. President, this would not be the America we have come to know and love. It is not the kind of America my grandparents and your grandparents or our fathers and mothers built for us and for future generations. It is not the America that built the best middle class history has ever seen. This budget is not the kind of America my friends and neighbors in Iowa would find acceptable.

So, mark my words, this budget is not a courageous budget. As I said, it is a cowardly budget, a bully budget. And the American people will not stand for this unwise, unbalanced, unfair assault on their economic security, their way of life, and the America our grandparents and our parents built for us and for future generations.

Mr. President, I will oppose with every fiber of my being these grossly, misguided proposals in every way I can. And I can assure you, Mr. President, the American people will not stand for this tea party Republican budget either.

Mr. President, I understand there is a House joint resolution at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

I now ask for its second reading, and in order to place the joint resolution on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object.

Mr. President, along with Senator Isakson, today I am introducing a bill to allow veterans with disabilities who utilize service dogs the same access to VA health care and facilities as those using guide dogs. Right now, a vet who has a seeing-eye dog can go into any VA hospital to get services, but it is at the discretion of each facility whether or not to allow a vet to bring a service dog, which they use for mobility, assistance with living with hearing loss, comfort for those experiencing PTSD, and to alert others if they have a seizure.

This bill will provide for full access to all veterans at every VA facility, without exception. There should not be a variation in policy from one VA facility to another. It is a small but laudable goal to promote the access of persons with disabilities at VA facilities and guarantee all veterans, regardless of their disability, receive the care and services they need and are entitled to through their selfless service to our Nation.

Mr. President, along with Senator Isakson, today I am introducing a bill to allow veterans with disabilities who utilize service dogs the same access to VA health care and facilities as those using guide dogs. Right now, a vet who has a seeing-eye dog can go into any VA hospital to get services, but it is at the discretion of each facility whether or not to allow a vet to bring a service dog, which they use for mobility, assistance with living with hearing loss, comfort for those experiencing PTSD, and to alert others if they have a seizure.

This bill will provide for full access to all veterans at every VA facility, without exception. There should not be a variation in policy from one VA facility to another. It is a small but laudable goal to promote the access of persons with disabilities at VA facilities and guarantee all veterans, regardless of their disability, receive the care and services they need and are entitled to through their selfless service to our Nation.

Mr. President, in today's rapidly changing, global knowledge-based economy, making sure that all students graduate from high school is more important than ever. A high school diploma opens the doors to postsecondary education and workforce development programs, which lead to jobs that pay family-sustaining wages. The bottom line is that a high school diploma is no longer an option--it is an essential education credential that all Americans need to have in order to successfully compete in the workforce. Yet, for far too many, a high school diploma is still out of reach. According to researchers at Johns Hopkins University, one out of every three students who enters the ninth grade fails to graduate from high school within 4 years. An estimated 12 million students will drop out of school during the next decade, costing the Nation more than $3 trillion in forgone revenues and increased social service costs.

When Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, we required that accountability determinations for high schools include graduation rates. However, the law did not require States to use a common formula for calculating graduation rates nor did it set graduation rate goals for high schools. As a result, states created different calculations that have led to inconsistent and inaccurate reporting of

graduation rates. Without transparency, we cannot know the full extent of our Nation's dropout crisis, hold schools accountable, or design effective solutions.

That is why I am pleased to introduce the Every Student Counts Act, which my colleague Rep. Bobby Scott will introduce in the House today. This legislation will ensure the accurate calculation and reporting of high school graduation rates, and will hold States, districts, and schools accountable for ensuring that all students graduate with a high school diploma.

The Every Student Counts Act builds upon steps taken by all 50 States and the Department of Education to ensure more accurate calculations of and reporting of high school graduation rates.

Four years into the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, State leaders recognized the need for consistent graduation rate calculations and governors from all 50 States joined together in 2005 to call for a uniform graduation rate across the States. This leadership from the States was crucial in calling attention to the problem of inaccurate graduation rate calculations and formed the basis for action. In 2008, the U.S. Department of Education built on the governors' laudable work and issued regulations that require states to use a single, accurate graduation rate calculation and to set graduation rate goals and annual growth targets.

The 2008 regulations were an important step in the right direction, but they need to be improved and codified so that states, districts, and schools no longer have to rely solely on regulations that could be reversed. The Every Student Counts Act codifies key pieces of the regulations while making improvements where necessary. Specifically, this act sets a uniform graduation rate goal of 90 percent and requires schools that do not meet this goal to improve their graduation rate annually by three percentage points. Additionally, this act builds upon the States' and the Department of Education's graduation rate calculation work by giving credit to schools for students who graduate in more than 4 years through a cumulative graduation rate calculation, while maintaining the expectation that all students graduate within 4 years.

This legislation will bring transparency and accountability to schools across the Nation to help them provide all students with the high school diploma they need to have a chance to succeed in postsecondary education and the global economy.

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

Mr. President, in today's rapidly changing, global knowledge-based economy, making sure that all students graduate from high school is more important than ever. A high school diploma opens the doors to postsecondary education and workforce development programs, which lead to jobs that pay family-sustaining wages. The bottom line is that a high school diploma is no longer an option--it is an essential education credential that all Americans need to have in order to successfully compete in the workforce. Yet, for far too many, a high school diploma is still out of reach. According to researchers at Johns Hopkins University, one out of every three students who enters the ninth grade fails to graduate from high school within 4 years. An estimated 12 million students will drop out of school during the next decade, costing the Nation more than $3 trillion in forgone revenues and increased social service costs.

When Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, we required that accountability determinations for high schools include graduation rates. However, the law did not require States to use a common formula for calculating graduation rates nor did it set graduation rate goals for high schools. As a result, states created different calculations that have led to inconsistent and inaccurate reporting of

graduation rates. Without transparency, we cannot know the full extent of our Nation's dropout crisis, hold schools accountable, or design effective solutions.

That is why I am pleased to introduce the Every Student Counts Act, which my colleague Rep. Bobby Scott will introduce in the House today. This legislation will ensure the accurate calculation and reporting of high school graduation rates, and will hold States, districts, and schools accountable for ensuring that all students graduate with a high school diploma.

The Every Student Counts Act builds upon steps taken by all 50 States and the Department of Education to ensure more accurate calculations of and reporting of high school graduation rates.

Four years into the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, State leaders recognized the need for consistent graduation rate calculations and governors from all 50 States joined together in 2005 to call for a uniform graduation rate across the States. This leadership from the States was crucial in calling attention to the problem of inaccurate graduation rate calculations and formed the basis for action. In 2008, the U.S. Department of Education built on the governors' laudable work and issued regulations that require states to use a single, accurate graduation rate calculation and to set graduation rate goals and annual growth targets.

The 2008 regulations were an important step in the right direction, but they need to be improved and codified so that states, districts, and schools no longer have to rely solely on regulations that could be reversed. The Every Student Counts Act codifies key pieces of the regulations while making improvements where necessary. Specifically, this act sets a uniform graduation rate goal of 90 percent and requires schools that do not meet this goal to improve their graduation rate annually by three percentage points. Additionally, this act builds upon the States' and the Department of Education's graduation rate calculation work by giving credit to schools for students who graduate in more than 4 years through a cumulative graduation rate calculation, while maintaining the expectation that all students graduate within 4 years.

This legislation will bring transparency and accountability to schools across the Nation to help them provide all students with the high school diploma they need to have a chance to succeed in postsecondary education and the global economy.

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

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

Mr. President, the responsible leaders in Washington are working hard to find a compromise to fund the government through the end of the year. Regrettably, however, many Republicans in the House-- spurred on by tea party radicals--are still threatening to throw a temper tantrum and shut down the government if they don't get all of their demands. This morning, the Washington Post reports that Speaker John Boehner received an ovation from the Republican caucus when he told them he had directed the House Administration Committee to prepare for a shutdown, as Congressman Mike Pence, former head of the Republican Policy Committee, shouted at a tea party rally last week, ``Shut it down!''

So it seems what we are confronting is kind of a monolithic House driven by the tea party vigilantes, as I refer to them, to brook no compromise. They want it all their way or they are going to shut down the government.

Republicans are seizing on the budget crisis as a pretext for ramming through their longstanding ideological wishes. In Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, and elsewhere Republicans are using the budget crisis as the pretext for an assault on public sector unions and their hard-working teachers, firefighters, prison guards, and others. On Capitol Hill Republicans are using this crisis to try to defund health care reform, to gut Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, and, yes, to cut tax rates even more deeply for the wealthiest in our society. This tea party budget is an unprecedented assault on the middle-class and working Americans. It would drive down our American standard of living, shred the economic safety net, reduce access to health care and higher education, and do grave damage to our public schools and our ability to prepare the next generation for the jobs of the future.

Let's be clear. This is not about reducing budget deficits. Republican Governors and Republicans in Congress are demanding budget cuts for the middle class. At the same time, they continue to push for tax cuts for large corporations and the wealthy. So call it what it is. Republicans are waging a class warfare in America. Republican Governors have the gall to attack teachers and firefighters, police officers, and other public employees.

In the words of Indiana Governor Daniels, he called them ``the privileged elite.'' Think about that. Our teachers, our firefighters, prison guards, and others who are public union members are the privileged elite in our society according to Governor Daniels.

Why are they the privileged elite? Well, I guess because they actually have pensions. They actually have access to decent health care, and they are making decent wages with decent working conditions. That is the privileged elite. I guess now the middle class are people who are working for minimum wage at McDonald's, with no health care, no pensions, no retirement, and not enough to support their families. I guess that is the new middle class in America, but the privileged elite are those who have pensions, access to health care, and decent wages.

This is the worst kind of demagoguery against loyal and hard-working public servants, our friends, and our neighbors. We shouldn't be dragging people down because they have a middle-class life. We should be working every day to give every American that opportunity.

Meanwhile, as the Republicans at the State and national level go after the health care, retirement, and security of middle-class Americans, they are going all out to pass more tax cuts for the wealthy. The Republican Governor in Michigan called for a $1.8 billion cut in corporate taxes. Wisconsin Governor Walker has called for $200 million in cuts. In Congress, just a few months ago, in December, Republicans demanded and got hundreds of billions of dollars in new tax cuts largely, again, for the wealthy.

Now, House Republicans--the tea party-driven House Republicans--are demanding we reduce the top tax rate for high earners. Get this, reduce the top tax rate for high earners from 35 percent down to 25 percent, preserving every penny of the tax breaks given to the wealthy back in 2001. All of these tax cut proposals will make deficits far worse. So, again, this whole battle we are talking about is not about deficits. Indeed, the tax cuts congressional Republicans secured in December will add, according to CBO, $354 billion to the deficit just this year and even more next year.

Early this year House Republicans voted to repeal the health reform law which would add $210 billion to the deficit over the next decade and over $1 trillion in the decade to follow. Now, again, that is the savings CBO said would come about because of the health reform bill we passed. Yet these same Republican politicians in the House and around the country are claiming to be worried about the deficit.

Well, I think this demagoguery is not fooling anyone any longer. It is not about deficit reduction; it is about ideology. Republicans are taking a meat ax to programs for the middle class--everything from cancer research to Pell grants to health care. They are gutting the safety net started and built up over generations, starting with President Franklin Roosevelt. It is the same old Republican game plan: give huge, unaffordable tax cuts to the wealthy and give budget cuts to the middle class and the most vulnerable in our society, including seniors and people with disabilities.

This new tea party Republican budget proposal gives new meaning to the word ``extreme.''

Look at what they have proposed. The new budget that has just come out on the House side would basically eliminate Medicare as we know it. It would create a new voucher program with seniors in the future paying out of pocket for many lifesaving health care costs. Estimates are that this would raise premiums and cut benefits of over 25 million seniors.

It is a massive giveaway to private insurers, a system that CBO--the Congressional Budget Office--tells us is much more expensive and, we know, less efficient than Medicare. By design these vouchers would not keep up with rising health care costs, so they would lose value every year with seniors paying the difference or ending up uninsured. Again, the assault on Medicare is a transfer of wealth from the middle class to insurance companies and their shareholders, their stockholders.

The House budget would reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole requiring seniors to pay $3,600 a year more for prescription drugs. They propose to block grant Medicaid and cut $1 trillion in health care services which would end vital services that seniors and disabled Americans depend on such as coverage for nursing homes or home health agencies by shifting the cost to the States. This would worsen State budget deficits and lead to higher property taxes. Seventeen Governors sent a letter to congressional leaders opposing this, saying it would shift costs and risks to States. States would be forced to bear all costs after hitting the annual cap just as the baby boom generation is entering the retirement years with likely steep increases in their

health care and long-term care costs. The ensuing funding shortfall would leave States with an untenable choice between increasing taxes, cutting other State programs or cutting eligibility, benefits or provider payments.

That is a letter 17 Governors sent to the President.

I remind my colleagues that Republicans complained bitterly in the last Congress when we approved support for the States to maintain health programs for the poor in the recent recession--a level of support the Republicans are now trying to slash in the States. The House budget would put future seniors in the same budget fight, and the Republican budget proposal doesn't stop at dismantling the safety net and programs that the seniors rely on for a secure retirement. It makes profound and destructive cuts to the entire range of programs that underpin the American middle-class standard of living--everything from education, student grants, loans, law enforcement, clean air and clean water, food safety, biomedical research, highways, bridges, and other infrastructure--in short, all the programs and services Americans rely on for a decent way of life.

The Republican assault on the middle class is breathtaking, both in the scope and in its depth. It cannot come at a worse time for working Americans, who are already under enormous strain and fear that the American dream is slipping away.

It is no secret people are working longer and harder than ever before, but they still can't meet the cost of basic, everyday needs such as education, transportation, housing, and health care, let alone put away enough money to support themselves in old age.

Even before the great recession, during boom times, working people weren't sharing in our Nation's prosperity. Real wages peaked in the 1970s, and they have not moved since. Think about this. Real wages, accounting for inflation, are about where they were in 1979. Think about that. The middle class in America has not made any headway since 1979. We wonder why people are upset. They see the middle class way of life slipping away from them and their children.

I don't think we can say the wealthiest 400 or 500 people in America are at the same place they were in 1979--not at all. In fact, in the mid-1970s, the top 1 percent of Americans, in terms of wealth, had about $8 trillion in assets. Today, that same 1 percent has over $40 trillion in assets. It is not the same as where they were in 1979.

The top 1 percent has seen their income soar. Last Friday, our colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse, was on the floor, and he had some very startling statistics. He pointed out that the 400 highest income earners in America earn an average of $344 million a year. Got that? They earn an average of $344 million a year, and they paid an effective tax of 16.7 percent. The average person working around here--the police we see here, the janitors, the food service workers, and others in the Capitol--do you know what they pay? They are probably paying 29, 30 percent of their income in taxes. But the 400 highest income earners only paid 16.7 percent. We wonder why people think things aren't quite on the up and up or quite fair.

Do you detect people who are just kind of feeling uneasy about where this country is headed? People are profoundly anxious about the future, but look at what the House Republicans are doing. They are going to make it worse on the middle class. People are worried they will not be able to have a decent house or enough food for their families or pay for their kids' college education. People are working harder, and they don't even take vacations any longer because they can't afford it.

If we learned anything from the great recession, it is that most families, even though solidly in the middle class, are one pink slip away from economic catastrophe. Everybody keeps talking about a recovery. Many of our friends and neighbors aren't seeing that. Corporate America is sitting on over $1 trillion in cash, while 14 million Americans are out of work. That is just the official number. That is not counting another 15 million who are underemployed or who have quit looking for jobs because they have been shut out of the job market.

This doesn't look like a real recovery to me. It is a repeat of the last recession, when the recovery went to the wealthiest and the working people were left behind. Republicans have proposed a budget that will destroy the middle class in this country. That is what the Republican budget is about.

Many Republicans apparently believe that as public sector workers and others lose their jobs, it will be somehow good for the economy. Two weeks ago, the Republican staff on the Joint Economic Committee released a report arguing that widespread layoffs would actually increase jobs. How about that for funny reasoning?

As Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman pointed out, this is a throwback to the thinking of Depression-era Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, the idea that by driving down wages and benefits, we will increase employment. This is now ``the official doctrine of the GOP,'' he points out. If we drive down wages and benefits, we will somehow increase employment. I suppose we could. I suppose if we got everybody down to working for $1 an hour, there might be a lot of jobs out there.

The idea is not a job. It is not just having someone work. The idea is to have a good job. I have pointed out in speeches in the past that, when we think about it, in our sordid history of America, every slave had a job. Think about that. Every slave had a job. Were they free? Were they happy? Did they keep their families together? Were they able to build up a middle-class nest egg? Did they have decent retirement and health care? No. But they had a job. Is that all we are after is just a job? It seems to me that we are after jobs that pay decent wages, with decent working conditions, and allow people to have time with their kids and their families.

What is wrong with having a job that has a decent wage and decent working conditions and you get to take a decent vacation and you have health care coverage and you have a pension for your old age? What is wrong with that kind of a job? These are the kinds of jobs we want for Americans--not just a job. But the Republican philosophy seems to be just a job. Forget about the pension and your standard of living, just be thankful that you have a minimum-wage job. That is where this Republican budget is driving us.

I could not help but think about this in terms of what is happening in the world--in Libya and what happened in Egypt and in Syria and in Yemen and what is happening in other places around the globe. When stripped away from all of it, it seems to me that in all these countries, people are saying we have had enough of a system where a few at the top get everything and nobody else gets anything and we are all at the bottom. In so many of these countries, these revolutions are going on so people can have a more decent life, a better share, if you will, of the products of their own society. So they are going in the direction of trying to establish a better middle class, a stronger middle class.

What are we doing in America, the bastion of middle-class virtues. We are going in the other direction. We are destroying the middle class, taking away the kinds of livelihoods that built the middle class. That is what this is about. The future of our Nation depends on our ability to ensure that the benefits from economic growth are widely shared. That means putting policies into place that build a strong and vibrant middle class, with good jobs, fair wages, and good benefits. That is the America I want to see, one where people who work hard and play by the rules can have a decent life.

Tragically, the tea party budget plan would take us in exactly the opposite direction. It would gut the whole range of programs that support the middle class in our country. It would dismantle the safety net that has been built for seniors, those with disabilities and the low income--a safety net created under President Roosevelt and has been strengthened since.

The Republican tea party budget is built on bad priorities, bad policies, and just plain bad values.

As columnist E.J. Dionne points out, Americans can now see ``how radical the new conservatives in Washington are, and the extent to which some politicians would transfer even more resources from the have-nots and the have-a-littles to the have-a-lots.''

I don't believe the American people will stand for this unwise, unbalanced, unfair assault on their economic security and their way of life. We must stand strong and oppose these grossly misguided proposals in every way we possibly can. This is a battle that is joined and we cannot be faint of heart or weak in spirit. We must stand strong for middle-class values and what allowed America to become a strong middle- class nation. I believe the American people are definitely on our side in this battle.

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

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair.

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

Mr. President, ensuring that all students, regardless of background or ability, receive an education that gives them the opportunity to live a successful and fulfilling life has always been a major focus of my career in public service. To achieve this goal, I have fought especially hard for students with disabilities to have access to the general education curriculum and the services and supports they need to succeed, and to safeguard their rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. That is why I am pleased to introduce the IDEA Fairness Restoration Act, which my colleague Rep. Van Hollen will also be introducing in the House today. This critical legislation will remove the financial barrier that families, especially low- and middle-income families, face as they pursue their children's rights to the free, appropriate public education they deserve and are entitled to under the Fourteenth Amendment.

When Congress originally passed IDEA, we recognized the vital importance of parent and school collaboration in special education and required they jointly develop an Individualized Education Plan, IEP, to identify goals to promote the academic achievement of students with disabilities. In general, this partnership has served students well. There are, however, times when schools have not fulfilled their responsibilities to provide an appropriate education. In these cases, IDEA provides parents the right to challenge the schools through mediation and due process. To make their argument, families often need access to expert witnesses who can assess the student's needs and testify about whether the current IEP meets those needs. These expert witnesses are a resource that many families cannot afford, but without access to them, families may be unable to make their case.

When Congress amended IDEA in 1986, it recognized the financial barriers that parents face in pursuing due process to resolve disagreements with their school and specified in the Conference Committee Report that when the court finds in favor of the parents a judge could award attorney's fees, including ``reasonable expenses and fees of expert witnesses and the reasonable costs of any test or evaluation which is found to be necessary for the preparation of the parent or guardian's case.'' For years, parents who prevailed in judicial proceedings were awarded these fees, as Congress intended. But in 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Arlington Central School District v. Murphy that courts could no longer award these fees because Congress made its intention explicit in the Conference Report rather than in statute. As a result, many parents are discouraged and even prevented from pursuing meritorious cases to secure the rights of their children. Low- and middle-income families are particularly hard hit.

This IDEA Fairness Restoration Act clarifies Congress' express intent that parents should recover expert witness fees, as they currently can do with attorneys' fees, if they prove that the school system has wrongfully denied their child an appropriate education as defined by IDEA. By including ``reasonable expenses and fees of expert witnesses and the reasonable costs of any test or evaluation which is found to be necessary for the preparation of the parent or guardian's case'' and reestablishing the right of judges to award such fees to parents who prevail in IDEA cases, as Congress intended, this legislation will level the playing field and restore the ability of low- and middle- income parents to be effective advocates for their children's educational needs.

This legislation is an essential step for protecting the rights of students with disabilities and ensuring that all families, regardless of their financial resources, can advocate for and protect their children's rights through due process.

Mr. President, ensuring that all students, regardless of background or ability, receive an education that gives them the opportunity to live a successful and fulfilling life has always been a major focus of my career in public service. To achieve this goal, I have fought especially hard for students with disabilities to have access to the general education curriculum and the services and supports they need to succeed, and to safeguard their rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. That is why I am pleased to introduce the IDEA Fairness Restoration Act, which my colleague Rep. Van Hollen will also be introducing in the House today. This critical legislation will remove the financial barrier that families, especially low- and middle-income families, face as they pursue their children's rights to the free, appropriate public education they deserve and are entitled to under the Fourteenth Amendment.

When Congress originally passed IDEA, we recognized the vital importance of parent and school collaboration in special education and required they jointly develop an Individualized Education Plan, IEP, to identify goals to promote the academic achievement of students with disabilities. In general, this partnership has served students well. There are, however, times when schools have not fulfilled their responsibilities to provide an appropriate education. In these cases, IDEA provides parents the right to challenge the schools through mediation and due process. To make their argument, families often need access to expert witnesses who can assess the student's needs and testify about whether the current IEP meets those needs. These expert witnesses are a resource that many families cannot afford, but without access to them, families may be unable to make their case.

When Congress amended IDEA in 1986, it recognized the financial barriers that parents face in pursuing due process to resolve disagreements with their school and specified in the Conference Committee Report that when the court finds in favor of the parents a judge could award attorney's fees, including ``reasonable expenses and fees of expert witnesses and the reasonable costs of any test or evaluation which is found to be necessary for the preparation of the parent or guardian's case.'' For years, parents who prevailed in judicial proceedings were awarded these fees, as Congress intended. But in 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Arlington Central School District v. Murphy that courts could no longer award these fees because Congress made its intention explicit in the Conference Report rather than in statute. As a result, many parents are discouraged and even prevented from pursuing meritorious cases to secure the rights of their children. Low- and middle-income families are particularly hard hit.

This IDEA Fairness Restoration Act clarifies Congress' express intent that parents should recover expert witness fees, as they currently can do with attorneys' fees, if they prove that the school system has wrongfully denied their child an appropriate education as defined by IDEA. By including ``reasonable expenses and fees of expert witnesses and the reasonable costs of any test or evaluation which is found to be necessary for the preparation of the parent or guardian's case'' and reestablishing the right of judges to award such fees to parents who prevail in IDEA cases, as Congress intended, this legislation will level the playing field and restore the ability of low- and middle- income parents to be effective advocates for their children's educational needs.

This legislation is an essential step for protecting the rights of students with disabilities and ensuring that all families, regardless of their financial resources, can advocate for and protect their children's rights through due process.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the FIT Kids Act. That first word, FIT, an acronym for Fitness Integrated with Teaching, an important concept that I am proud to promote today. The FIT Kids Act encourages schools to provide children with quality physical education in an effort to promote health and wellness throughout their lives.

Since the 1970s, the incidence of obesity has more than doubled for preschool children aged 2-5 years and for young people aged 12-19 years; for children aged 6-11 years, it has more than tripled. Since there are many reasons for this public health crisis, we know that addressing it will require multiple solutions. An important place we can address childhood obesity is in our schools. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that fewer than 10 percent of our public schools offer daily physical education for the entire school year for all students. Let me repeat that, fewer than 10 percent. Our kids deserve better. Research has shown that physical education not only promotes health and wellness, it also has a direct correlation with kids' academic performance in school.

The FIT Kids Act would amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to shine a light on the availability of quality physical education for all public school children through grade 12, and to ensure they receive important health and nutritional information. As Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, I have been working in a bipartisan way with my colleagues on the committee to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

With the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we must fix the things that are not working, while protecting the goals of the bill, including narrowing achievement gaps. It is truly alarming to see the discrepancies in achievement between children in the United States and children abroad. Here in the U.S., despite making some progress, we continue to have wide and persistent achievement gaps that are leaving behind children of color, young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, and children with disabilities.

In addition to achievement gaps, I am also concerned about the trends in physical education in schools across the Nation. Currently, schools are decreasing the amount of free play or physical activity that children engage in during school hours. Only about one-third of elementary children have daily physical education, and less than one- fifth have extracurricular physical activity programs at their schools. I know that difficult resource decisions have to be made but we cannot short-change our children's health. This is short-sighted for two big reasons: One, we are fighting a childhood obesity epidemic of frightening proportions. And, two, as research shows, and as any teacher or parent knows, kids have to have time to play and burn off energy if they are going to be in a proper frame of mind to learn.

The association between physical activity and academic achievement is an important part of why we need to continue to support physical education. Broad evidence suggests a positive relationship between physical activity and grade point average, rate of learning, memory, attention span, and classroom behavior, as well as cognitive, social, and motor skill development. Research indicates that youth who report engaging in physical activity at school are 20 percent more likely than their less active peers to earn good grades in math or English. Furthermore, data suggests that children who are overweight have greater risk for school absenteeism than their peers who are average weight. In order for our Nation's children to be successful students, we must do all that we can to ensure they are in school and ready to learn.

This legislation will ensure that parents receive critical information regarding the time and resources devoted to their children for a quality physical education. Specifically, the bill will require schools, local educational agencies, and state educational agencies to publicly report on the quantity and quality of physical education courses provided using nationally recognized guidelines and standards. This will give parents the information they need to assess whether their children are receiving an appropriate physical education. Furthermore, the FIT Kids Act would give parents the tools necessary to encourage and support a healthy and active lifestyle, including increased physical activity during and outside the school day, and nutritious eating habits both at home and at school.

In addition, the bill promotes professional development for teachers and school principals to promote healthy lifestyles and physical activity through evidence-based curricula, and thereby boost students' ability to learn more effectively. The bill also promotes physical activity in after-school programs and amends the school counseling program to take into account both students' emotional wellbeing and their physical wellbeing.

Finally, this legislation authorizes research on the ways physical activity can be incorporated into all aspects of the school day, the impact of physical activity on students' readiness to learn, and the best ways to measure student progress in increasing physical activity.

The FIT Kids Act shines a spotlight on children's health and how our schools can play a greater role in teaching our children healthy behaviors. As we move forward in reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we cannot neglect the importance of proper physical education. We know that sedentary lifestyles that begin in childhood can lead to number of major chronic diseases that affect their health and wellbeing in adulthood. Accordingly, we owe it to American students to teach them healthy behaviors and the importance of physical activity, and how these lessons will benefit them throughout their lives. The FIT Kids Act provides the framework to accomplish this. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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