Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this Congressional Review Act challenge is the latest chapter in an unprecedented Republican assault on unions. The amount of time this Congress has wasted scrutinizing and bullying the National Labor Relations Board over the last 2 years is simply astonishing. This time the debate is about whether the NLRB acted appropriately when it streamlined its procedures for setting up a union election and eliminated unnecessary bureaucracy to make the agency more efficient. This seems like a commonsense and logical step that if taken by any other agency my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would be applauding as a step forward for good government and efficiency. But because these reforms were put forward by the NLRB--an agency my Republican colleagues seem to do anything to undermine--we are all standing here today debating the merits of this eminently sensible action. It is a real shame. At a time when we should be working together to rebuild our economy and addressing the real challenges facing working families across this Nation, instead Republicans are distracting this body with partisan attacks on the National Labor Relations Board and on unions. I would welcome the opportunity to spend this time on the Senate floor debating how to make life better for middle-class families. I would even welcome the opportunity to have a real debate about unions and the important role they play in our country. What I deeply regret is that we are instead going to spend time discussing the wild misinformation that has been spread about National Labor Relations Board rules that were properly undertaken, well within the agency's authority and completely sensible. So let me take a moment to try to set the record straight. In December, after receiving public input, the NLRB announced that some internal agency procedures governing union elections would be changed. These are modest changes that not only make the procedures more rational and efficient but also ensure that workers and employers alike will have an opportunity to make their voices heard in an environment free of intimidation. These changes, while modest, are desperately needed. They will address the rare but deeply troubling situation where an unscrupulous employer uses delay and frivolous litigation to try to keep workers from getting a fair election. Let me briefly explain how the process works and how the new rules will help. Ever since the passage of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935, workers have had a Federally protected right to choose whether to form a union, and our national policy, as stated in that act, has been to encourage collective bargaining. Workers who are interested in forming a union can request an election if at least 30 percent of the workers in that workplace sign a petition and present that to the National Labor Relations Board. About 90 percent of the time, the employer and the union reach an agreement covering when the election will be held, the timing of it, and who is in the bargaining unit. That is the ideal situation. That is what happens the majority of the time. Although we would never know it from the rhetoric surrounding these rules, the new procedures address only the roughly 10 percent of situations where these preelection issues are in dispute and the rules say nothing about 90 percent of the elections, where the two parties reach a voluntary agreement on election terms. This chart shows us only a tiny fraction of election petitions will be affected by these rules. As I said, 90 percent of the time the proposed union and the employers reach an agreement when the election is going to be held, how it is going to be held and other procedures. They voluntarily agree on that. Only 10 percent of the time do we have employers, some that are highly unscrupulous that will do anything to prevent their workers from having any kind of a voice in the running of the facility, that go to extreme lengths to frustrate the will of those who want to form a union. Again, the rules we are talking about don't even affect 90 percent of the businesses. This 10 percent of the time when the parties can't reach an agreement, the NLRB then holds a hearing to decide who should be in the bargaining unit. The NLRB's proposed rules deal with the mechanics of that hearing and they attempt to cut back on the frivolous litigation that has plagued the hearing process. That is the proposed rule. They deal with the mechanics of that and cut back on this frivolous litigation. Under the old rules, management could litigate every single issue they could imagine at the preelection hearing. They could file posthearing briefs over any issue no matter how minor, and they could appeal any decision to the NLRB here in Washington. In many cases, the election would be put on hold while the Board reviewed the case. The workers then had to wait for the resolution of this litigation before they could even vote. When the management side took advantage of every opportunity for delay, the average time before workers could vote was 198 days. Again, we are talking about this 10 percent. When management took advantage of every opportunity, the average time before workers could even vote was 198 days. We have some cases where it has been as long as 13 years before employees were able to vote in a union election. While the election process drags on, workers are often subjected to harassment, threats, and, yes, firing. A study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research found that, among workers who openly advocate for a union during an election campaign, one in five is fired. We know what kind of signal that sends to the rest of the workers. A Cornell University study found that workers were required to attend an average of ten anti-union meetings during worktime before the election. By law, workers have the right to organize. As I said, our official policy, as stated in the National Labor Relations Act, is to encourage collective bargaining, but in practice we allow delay and intimidation to make that right meaningless. The current NLRB election reforms do not solve this problem entirely, but nevertheless they are an important step forward. They help clear the bureaucratic redtape that has wasted government resources and denied workers the right to a free choice. Under the new rules, employers and unions can still raise their concerns about the petition at a preelection hearing, but they can't play games to stall the election. For example, under the new rules, employers can't waste time before the election arguing over whether an individual worker is eligible to vote. That worker then can vote a provisional ballot, and the two sides can debate the issue after the election if it matters to the outcome. What we have had in the past is, let's say we had a proposed bargaining unit that was 200 people. Let's say they got 100 of them to sign a petition. They usually try to get about 50 percent. They present it to the NLRB. Management then says: Person A shouldn't be in that bargaining unit because they are a supervisor, and person B over here shouldn't be in here because that person is a clerk and not a handler--or whatever it might be that wouldn't correspond to the bargaining unit. Let's say they raise that issue on five people. Under the present situation, they could then take this to the NLRB, have hearings on each one of those. If they didn't like the outcome, they could then take it to Washington, DC and drag it out. Under the new rules, what they would say is: OK. If management is challenging those five people, we will set their ballots aside, and we will have an election. If the election was 150 to 20 that they form a union, then those 5 wouldn't make any difference one way or the other. But if the election were close and those five would, then the NLRB would step in and say: Wait a minute. The certification would be put on hold until they decided whether those people were rightfully in the bargaining unit to vote. Again, these are some of the games that have been going on. Another example is appeals. All parties still have the right to appeal any decision they disagree with. But now, all appeals would be consolidated after the election, which allows the Board to conserve its resources and keep the election process moving forward. These commonsense changes remove unnecessary delays from the process, they cut down on frivolous legal challenges, and give workers the right to a fair up-or-down vote in a reasonable period of time. The new rules don't encourage unionization and they don't discourage it. They just give workers the ability to say yes or no, without having to wait several months or even years to do so. There is rampant misinformation about this rule. To be clear, the rule does not allow a so-called ambush election, where an employer is taken by surprise and has no ability or opportunity to communicate with workers about the pros and cons of a union. As anyone who has ever been around a workplace that is part of an organizing drive would know, employers always know what is going on, and they have ample opportunity to express their views. They can require their workers to listen to an anti-union message all day long every day, and that is perfectly legal, while the union isn't even allowed into the facility to talk to other workers. This rule also does not change the content of what an employer can or cannot say to its workers. It doesn't restrict an employer's free speech rights in any way. Finally--I wish to make this clear--the rule does not mandate that elections be held within any particular timeframe. For anyone who has actually read the new rules, it is clear it does nothing of the sort. What these rules do accomplish is to help ensure that employers and employees have a level playing field, where corporate executives and rank-and-file workers alike have an equal chance to make their case for or against a union. Some workplaces will choose a union, some will not. But protecting the right of workers to make that choice brings some balance and fairness to the system. Indeed, many employers have recognized that the new rules are fair and balanced. Catholic Health Care West, a health care company with 31,000 employees, filed comments stating: Reforms proposed by the NLRB are not pro-union or pro- business. They are pro-modernization. Further, Catholic Health Care West said they will: Modernize the representation election process by improving the Board's current representation election procedures that result in unnecessary delays, allow unnecessary litigation, and fail to take advantage of modern communication technologies. Mr. Willie West, founder and owner of West Sheet Metal Company in Sterling, VA, wrote an article in the Hill newspaper stating that: [t]hese seemingly minor changes certainly do not create uncertainty for me and they will not affect my ability to create jobs. In fact, if the NLRB standardizes the election process, it seems to me this will reduce uncertainty and turmoil in the workplace--especially for small businesses. Mr. West is exactly right. The rules are an improvement for small businesses and for those who want a cooperative relationship with their employees. Again, keep in mind, 90 percent of the time they have no problems. We are only talking about this 10 percent of the time. That is what these rules are aimed at. The new rules promote consistency among NLRB field offices. They simplify procedures for all parties, making it easier for businesses to plan. The old rules gave an advantage to the businesses with the most money and those most willing to manipulate the system to frustrate their employees' right to vote. Some of these businesses in that 10 percent could afford expensive lawyers to exploit the system and delay elections. The old rules worked well for anti-union law firms--I will grant you that--but not for small businesses on a budget. By creating a fair, more transparent process, the NLRB is leveling the playing field for small businesses. Most important, the rules also take a small step to level the playing field for ordinary Americans. The people who do the work in this country deserve a voice in the decisions that affect their families and their futures. Polls show that 53 percent of workers want representation in the workplace, but fewer than 7 percent of private sector workers are represented and one of the reasons is the broken NLRB election system. Even though more workers than ever are expressing an interest in having a voice on the job, the number of union representation elections conducted by the NLRB declined by an astounding 60 percent between 1997 and 2009. When workers do file for NLRB elections, 35 percent give up in the face of extreme employer intimidation and withdraw from the election before a vote is even held. Let me repeat that. Workers have gone around, they have gotten signatures, they have gotten the requisite 30 percent. They usually get a lot more than that, 40 to 50 percent. They file with the NLRB. One out of every three of those give up in the face of extreme employer intimidation. Why? Because one out of every five is being fired because there is no real penalty against the employer for firing someone for union organizing. It is against the law to fire an employee because they were exercising their right to form a union, to be in union organizing. But it happens all the time. Why do employers not worry about it? Because there are no penalties. The penalty is backpay minus any offsets. I had a young man in Iowa I remember very well up in Mason City. He had been involved in organizing a union at his workplace. He got fired. He filed with the NLRB saying he was wrongly dismissed because of his union-organizing activities. They had a hearing. It dragged on for 3 years before the NLRB could reach a decision, and the decision was, yes, he was fired because of his union-organizing activities. What was the penalty on the employer? They had to pay him 3 years' backpay minus whatever he earned in the meantime as a worker. How many people can go through years without working? Of course, he had to work. He had to go to work, and he had to show how much money he made in the meantime that had to be deducted from what his employer had to pay him. Therefore, they had to pay practically nothing. Yet using that as an example, they were able to frustrate the organizing of a union. One-third give up in the face of extreme employer intimidation. These are the problems that need to be addressed. It is not just a problem for unions either, but for our entire middle class and for the future of our economy. If we take a look at what is happening to the middle class in America, it is being decimated. The American people are insisting--even though we are not doing much of it in Washington, I can assure you the American people are insisting that we have a national dialog about the growing division between the haves and have-nots in this country, about the detrimental impact this is having on the standard of living of American middle-class families. This has led to important discussions about tax loopholes for corporations and millionaires. But as we learned from battles from Wisconsin to Ohio and beyond, it is very much a conversation about workers' rights. Unions have always been the backbone of the American middle class since we started having a middle class. Since 1973, private sector unionization rates have declined from 34 percent of the labor force to 7 percent; from 1 out of every 3 workers in America belonging to a union to now only 7 percent, 1 in about 15. While unionization rates declined, so did the middle-class share of national income. During some hearings we had last year--we had a number of hearings in our committee about this. When we track union membership--this, the blue line, from 1973 to today--and track the percent of workers covered by collective bargaining agreements, and then track the middle-class share of national income, look how they all go down the same. As unionization declined the number of workers in collective bargaining declined, and so did their share of the national income. That is what has happened to the middle class in America. Simply, the fate of America's unions parallels the fate of America's middle class. Unions are not a relic of a bygone era, they are a vital element of a fair and successful 21st-century economy. If we want to strengthen our economy and rebuild the middle class, we should try to figure out how to make unions stronger, how to get more people in collective bargaining, not attack collective bargaining rights across the country. We should be fighting to ensure that every hard-working American has a right to be treated with dignity and respect on the job--and, yes, to have a voice on that job. The current NLRB election reforms may fall short of that lofty goal, but, as I said, they are an important step forward, and they deserve support. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this Congressional Review Act challenge to NLRB's rules. Now that these rules are to go into effect-- and I am confident they will go into effect--it is time for this body to stop wasting time, using the NLRB as an election year political football. I think these attacks on this modest rule go right after the intelligence of working Americans. These attacks urge this body to help prevent unions from being organized. But ordinary Americans and the middle class want us to stop this political posturing and move forward on building economic opportunity for the middle class--and, yes, to support the right of people who want to form a union, to get rid of all these delays, and to make sure we have rules in place which basically reflect 90 percent of the employers in this country. Ninety percent of the employers reach agreements with their employees on having an election. It is that 10 percent that gets to be frustrating. This is the purpose of this rule, to make everybody sort of falls in the 90 percent, so we have a fair and expeditious election process, one that is understandable, one that does not lead to all this frivolous litigation and delay. We have another couple or 3 hours of debate on this matter. After this is over, I hope we can start focusing on ways to genuinely help the middle class in America. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do have I remaining?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are going to have a lot of time to flush out some of these arguments again tomorrow when the vote gets near, but I thought I might pick up on a couple of things here that my good friend from Wyoming said. We do a lot of work together, and he is a great Senator and a good friend of mine. He just happens to be wrong on this issue, but other than that, he is a good friend of mine. This is a good, healthy debate on policy. There is a lot of talk about these ambush elections. Now we are going to have ambush elections. Well, that is not so. The current median time from when a petition is filed and when the election occurs is about 37 to 38 days. Again, I heard from my friend saying this could be ambush elections, and all that kind of stuff. Even one of the Nation's largest management-side law firm disagrees. One of the attorneys from Jackson Lewis told the Wall Street Journal that he thinks the time would be shaved between 19 and 23 days under the proposal. Mr. Trauger, vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, said the elections would be held in 20 to 25 days under the new rule. So that is not an ambush election at all. All this rule does is remove these extra legal hurdles that can cause excessive delays. We keep hearing about rulemaking, and saying: Well, this board has only issued three of these rules in the past 75 years, two of these rules in the last couple of years. It makes it sound as though the NLRB has ridden off the range here in terms of reasonableness. But the fact is that when the board promulgated rules in the past, they did it through the adjudicative process, not through rulemaking. The Supreme Court and the U.S. Courts of Appeal have criticized the board in the past for underutilizing its rulemaking authority. Courts have said the rulemaking process is more transparent and more inclusive. So through rulemaking this board has solicited broader public input in its decisions. What the NLRB has done in the last couple of years is opened up the process for comment periods and rulemaking through the Administrative Procedures Act, something the courts have been asking and advising the NLRB that they should have been doing all along rather than relying on the adjudicative process. So, yes, my friend may be right about two of the three last couple of years, but actually that is a move in the right direction. That is a move for transparency and openness and letting all different sides have their comments before they issue a final rule rather than doing it through adjudication. There was this quote about John Kennedy about a 30-day waiting period. Well, I don't know, I have not looked at then-Senator Kennedy's entire record. I suppose there are some things I might agree with him on and some things I probably would not agree with him on. I don't know what his thought processes were. All I can tell you is that no matter what he said at that time as a Senator, the final bill did not have a waiting period. The Senate put it in, the House did not, and when it went to conference, they dropped it. So I think the rejection of that proposed amendment could be more reasonably understood as an indication that Congress did not believe a minimum time between petition and election is necessary. Sure, you can quote Kennedy, and I guess I can quote President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and here is what he said: Only a fool would try to deprive working men and women of the right to join a union of their choice. Well, we better not try to prevent them from joining a union of their choice. I have also heard this charge that somehow these rules tilt this more in favor of the unions than management. No, they don't. Again, we have mostly been talking here about the certification process. When union organizers get the signatures, they file with NLRB and we have an NLRB process. Basically that is what we are talking about here. But I would point out to my friend on the other side of the aisle that these procedures we are talking about also apply to decertification elections as well. So since the same rules will apply to decertification elections, the proposed rule will ensure that employees who have union representation will be able to have a timely up-or-down vote to also get rid of the union. So, to me, it is both. It is both on the certification and the decertification side. It makes for things to be much more expeditious, much clearer, and more understandable. That is why I think many management firms and businesses see this as a reasonable rule because when they would try to decertify, they don't have to go through all of this frivolous litigation on the other side. It applies to both certification and decertification, so it doesn't tilt the playing field one way or the other. Again, I applaud the National Labor Relations Board for moving in the direction of more rulemaking, making it more open, making it more transparent than what they have done in the past. But you know what it boils down to? As long as I have been here, since 1985 in this body, we have had ups and downs on the National Labor Relations Board. Let's face it, what happens is the National Labor Relations Board has three members from the President's political party and two from the other side. So when you have a Democratic President in, then NLRB gets attacked by Republicans. When a Republican President is in, it gets attacked by Democrats, and it becomes kind of a political football. I understand that, and we should all understand that is what this is too. That is what this is all about. I was just notified that a Statement of Administration Policy, SAP, from the administration just came through. It said even if this vote were held and the other side won--if it was voted to overrule the NLRB--the President would veto it. And, surely, no one thinks there is a two-thirds vote here to override the President's veto on this issue. We are kind of wasting our time here. It is sort of another political shot when there are so many important things we should be talking about in terms of jobs, job creation, the economy, fair taxation, keeping our jobs from going overseas, education, job retraining, and yet we are spending our time talking about this. Well, be that as it may, the facts are on the side that this rule is eminently reasonable, fair, and I think will lead to a more predictable and less litigious and less conflicting process when people want to form a union in this country. As I said, 90 percent of the time we don't have these problems. But for those 10 percent, it can be devastating, and it can thwart individual workers who want to form a union. So I am hopeful we can have a little bit more debate on this. I hope the vote tomorrow will be conclusive and that we will turn this down and move ahead with more important business confronting this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this side yields back the balance of our time for today as well.

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I just had a very wonderful phone call from a young Matt Rutherford, a 31-year-old man. I have spoken about him on the floor on a couple of occasions. He just made it safely home on his boat, the St. Brendan. He just crossed the finish line, coming out of the Atlantic Ocean into the Chesapeake Bay. For those of you who have not followed this story, about 309 days ago young Matt Rutherford, on a 27-foot sailboat--a 36-year-old sailboat to boot--left the Chesapeake Bay on one of the most audacious adventures ever undertaken. It has never been done before. He sailed his little boat out of the Chesapeake Bay. He sailed it in the Atlantic Ocean, up around Newfoundland, Labrador, by Greenland, and sailed that little boat through the Northwest Passage, from the Atlantic Ocean over to Alaska. He has been certified now as the first person to ever do so solo in a small sailboat. He sailed around Alaska. He sailed it from Alaska down to Cape Horn. Mind you, he is by himself on a 27-foot boat. He rounded Cape Horn and came up the east coast of South America, sailed up through the Caribbean, and is back, as of just a few hours ago, into the Chesapeake Bay--solo, nonstop, all by himself. He never touched land in all these days. He will set foot on land this Saturday at a homecoming in Annapolis at the National Sailing Hall of Fame dock in Annapolis, this Saturday around noontime. I am sure it will be a big welcome for Matt Rutherford. To add frosting to the cake of what he did--which, again, is an incredible, incredible adventure--he did it to raise funds for CRAB, Chesapeake Region Accessible Boating, which is an organization that helps people with disabilities, including wounded warriors from our armed services who have service-connected disabilities, to get them out on boats that will teach them how to sail, to let them know they too can participate in that recreational activity. So to Matt Rutherford, who has done something that has never been done before, welcome back. I am glad you are safe. I am glad you made it OK. To those of you who want to catch up on this incredible, incredible journey--I mean, think about Robert Peary going to the North Pole. Think about Roald Amundsen going to the South Pole. Think about Sir Francis Chichester sailing around the world in the Gypsy Moth IV, who, by the way, stopped once, or Joshua Slocum, who was the first person to sail solo around the world. Think about Sir Edmund Hillary climbing Mount Everest. These are the kinds of people whom Matt Rutherford now stands alongside of in sailing solo. You can go to the Web site to catch up on this. It is www.solotheamericas.org. To think about him sailing all the way around by the North Pole, all the way down, almost, to the South Pole, back up to America again--nonstop, never touched land, never stopped, and did it solo in a small 27-foot sailboat--it is one of the great adventures of our time--of any time. So I am happy he is back and he is safe and will be back on dry land this Saturday. Rebuild America Act Mr. President, as chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I have come to the floor on a number of occasions over the last year to express my concern about the distressed state of the American middle class. I do so again today in order to share with my colleagues my ideas for how we can rebuild the middle class in America and make our economy work for those who work for a living. Over the past year, while Washington has been gripped by a fear of budget deficits, I gave speech after speech here on the Senate floor pointing out an even more serious deficit: the deficit of vision in Washington, our failure to confront the current economic crisis with the boldness earlier generations of Americans summoned in times of national challenge. By this economic crisis, I do not just mean the current economic downturn. Instead, I am referring to the economic crisis that has taken place over the last 30 to 40 years that has resulted in a shrinking middle class, rising inequality in our country, a weakened economy, and a sense that the American dream is slipping away. This is the fundamental challenge--the fundamental challenge--facing our Nation today: rebuilding the American middle class. Altogether, I now have chaired five HELP Committee hearings on the crisis of the middle class. Last year my State staff visited all 99 counties in Iowa to gain greater insight into the challenges facing working Americans. During these events, I have heard from a diverse array of Americans, including economists, employers, union members, community college students, and everyday, hard-working, middle-class families. Not surprisingly, we found that more and more people are struggling just to make ends meet. Their jobs are insecure, their savings and pensions have shrunk, and they see an economic system that is rigged in favor of the very rich and the powerful. At a hearing last June, I invited Amanda Greubel, a social worker in her local Iowa school district, to share her story with the HELP Committee. During her testimony, she defined what it means to be in the middle class in this way: My husband and I didn't have dreams of great wealth. We never expected to have summer homes or expensive cars or vacations on the Riviera. We chose careers that inspire us, knowing that we would never make six-figure salaries. All we have ever wanted is security and a little comfort . . . to know that our bills are paid, our needs are met, that we can have a getaway every now and then, that our children can pursue higher education without the burden of student-loan debt, and that someday we can retire and enjoy our final years together in the way we choose. . . . When I think back over our adult lives, it strikes me that we did everything we were always told to do in order to have the American dream. . . . We did everything that all the experts said we should do, and yet still we're struggling. When you work as hard as we have and still sometimes scrape for the necessities, it really gets you down. That was Amanda. Unfortunately, those of us in Washington have not listened enough to people such as Amanda. People such as Amanda do not feel this way because of factors such as ``globalization'' or ``technology change.'' Indeed, harnessing those developments has helped to make the U.S. economy the envy of the world. Instead, the crisis of the middle class can be traced largely to unwise policy choices made here in Washington. For starters, for the last three decades, too many here in Washington have bought into the failed economic doctrine that says if we give more and more to the very wealthy and to the largest corporations, then prosperity will somehow trickle down to the rest of us. That idea has utterly failed to work for the American people. It is time we get back to policies that are premised on how our economy really works. A strong, vibrant middle class with money in their pockets to spend drives the economy forward because, very simply, businesses will not make things if they do not have any customers. As Mr. Nick Hanauer, a very successful private sector investor, put it in a recent Business Week column: Rich business people like me don't create jobs. Middle- class consumers do, and when they thrive, U.S. businesses grow and profit. So what is the best way forward? Instead of the slash-and-burn approaches of the past year and the failed economic doctrines of the past few decades, we need a way forward that rebuilds the middle class by reflecting the hopes and the can-do spirit of the American people, people such as Amanda Greubel. To meet the great challenge of our day, restoring and revitalizing the middle class, after having a number of hearings last year, as I said, and countless visits with people throughout my State, I recently introduced sweeping legislation called the Rebuild America Act. It now has a number, S. 2252. This legislation provides comprehensive solutions to rebuilding the American middle class. Some will say it is too bold and too ambitious, but I disagree. The sweep of this legislation is commensurate with the extraordinary challenge it addresses. The bill aims to rebuild the middle class in four broad ways: creating jobs, investing in the future, helping families, and bringing balance back into our tax system. Let me touch briefly on those four principles. One, we need to create jobs for all Americans, including for groups of Americans such as people with disabilities who have been especially hard hit by the recent recession. With the official unemployment rate over 8 percent, and some unofficial measures as high as 17 percent, the middle class will continue to lose ground. When jobs are scarce, workers do not have the leverage to demand fair treatment, paychecks stop growing, or even fall, and even people who are fortunate enough to have a job become fearful of losing it. People have less discretionary money in their pockets or the confidence to spend it. In the absence of robust consumer demand, businesses choose not to expand or invest. Secondly, we must invest in our future. Not only will investing in our infrastructure help create badly needed jobs in the short term, these investments will lay the groundwork for sustained economic growth in the long term. So my bill tackles this challenge head on by providing for robust new investments in America's infrastructure, including, of course, time-tested things such as roads and bridges, energy efficiency systems, also rebuilding and modernizing our public schools, rebuilding our manufacturing base in America. In addition, there is also the investment in the human infrastructure: helping prepare great teachers, providing better pathways to good jobs for workers, job retraining so that the old jobs that are now gone, we can now take those workers and retrain them for the future jobs, to ensure that current and future workers will have the education and skills they need to be successful and to be in the middle class. Three, we need to do more to help middle-class families succeed. It is time for us in Washington to wake up to the harsh reality that middle-class families have been living in for the last few decades. Unfortunately, the programs and policies that helped create the middle class have been either intentionally discarded or have fallen victim to neglect. For example, the real value of the minimum wage has declined for the last four decades, dragging down all workers' paychecks. In 1968, that was the height. That was when someone making the minimum wage had the highest purchasing power ever since we had a minimum wage--1968. Since that time, it has fallen in real terms. If, in fact, the minimum wage had kept pace just with inflation from 1968 to today, the minimum wage would be slightly over $10.30 an hour. Right now the Federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. So think of it this way: The same class of people that was making the minimum wage in 1968 is basically the same class of people making the minimum wage today: young people, minorities, people in businesses that are just starting, people who are not highly educated, new immigrants to this country, for example. So the same people who are making the minimum wage then are the same kind of class of people making the minimum wage today. But think about it this way. That same class of people today--today-- has 30 percent less buying power than that same class had in 1968--30 percent less. Think about that. That same person making the minimum wage today is making 30 percent less than his or her counterpart in 1968. So what my bill does is basically over a stage raise that minimum wage and then peg it to inflation in the future so we do not have that erosion again in the future. Also families and workers have seen basic rights, such as the right to organize and to bargain collectively, eroded. It is harder and harder and harder all the time for people to organize and join a union in this country. The right to overtime pay has been eroded under the Fair Labor Standards Act. So a lot of these things have been eroded by misguided regulations, bad court decisions, and years of lax enforcement. The fourth part of the bill. It is essential that we put balance back in the economy through a balanced tax system that will help reduce our deficit, get our fiscal house in order over the longer term. To do so, among other provisions, my bill includes a tax on Wall Street trades, often called a financial transaction tax. At just 3 cents per $100 dollars in trade value, that would raise $350 billion over 10 years. Again, you might say, well, is this something now? No. We had a transaction tax, a financial transaction tax, in this country until 1966. Then it was done away with. Well, that is again one of the reasons why we have seen this terrible inequality grow in our society where more and more of our wealth goes to fewer and fewer people. A small transaction tax would do two things. It would raise money. It would also discourage a lot of the spinning and the churning of transactions on Wall Street whereby some of these traders make hundreds of thousands of dollars a day, megamillions of dollars a year, but not adding much to our economy at all. So it's a small transaction tax. In addition, the bill requires high-income taxpayers to pay their fair share. Well, sort of like the Buffett rule that the present occupant of the chair, the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, championed the other day that we voted on here. It got voted down on party lines. I do not understand this, that we cannot even ask those who have the most in our society to pay their fair share. Well, just because we lost the vote on the Senate floor the other day does not mean we have to give up on it. I am sure the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Whitehouse, is going to continue his efforts, as he always has, to make sure that we have more fairness in our tax system. So that is in our bill also. Restoring balance and fairness to the Tax Code is critical to the success of our economy and is critical to the rebuilding of the middle class in America. So in sort of broad strokes, that is my Rebuild America Act, S. 2522. Over the last few years, the American people have heard from too many of us politicians and talking heads that our country is broke, that we can no longer afford the investments that make for a strong middle class. You know, that is sort of the premise of the Ryan budget in the House, cut and slash. The premise is one that has been in favor around this town for far too long. Here is the premise. The premise is that we are broke, the United States of America is broke and we cannot afford to do these things. This is false. The United States of America remains a wealthy Nation. We are the wealthiest Nation in the history of the world. We have the highest per capita income of any major country. So one might reasonably ask: If we are so rich, how come we are so broke? Think about that. If we are the richest Nation in the history of the world, if we have the highest per capita income of any major country, then why can we not afford to invest in our infrastructure, invest in better teachers, make sure our kids get a good education without a mountain of debt on their heads? Why cannot we invest in making new energy systems that are cleaner and more productive for the future? We can. We can do these things. The problem is not that we are broke, the problem is that because of actions or inactions by this government over the last 30 years, America's wealth has not been spread among our people in a reasonable way. The wealth has been concentrated in fewer and fewer and fewer hands. And the middle class in the meantime has been decimated. I submit that there can be no sustainable economic recovery to America, no sustained return to fiscal balance, without the recovery of the middle class. That is exactly the aim of the Rebuild America Act. It is comprehensive. Yes. Ambitious. Of course. But it rises to the challenge of our time. I urge my colleagues to join me in advancing this legislation and doing all we can to restore the American middle class. It is the fundamental challenge of our time. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in executive session on Wednesday, April 25, 2012 at 10 a.m. in SD 106 to mark-up S. ____, the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act; and, any nominations cleared for action. For further information regarding this meeting, please contact the committee at (202) 224 7675.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mehreen Rasheed and Shelbey Keegan of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, before the Easter recess, I came to the floor to talk about a truly remarkable American--a visionary, a dreamer, an adventurer, and, most importantly, a young man who has devoted himself to service to others far above and beyond the call of duty. The young man's name is Matt Rutherford, an Ohioan. He turned 31 about a week ago. Here is what he has done in almost the last year. On June 13 of last year, this then-30-year-old young man got onboard a 36-year-old, 27- foot-long Albin Vega sailboat, a small sloop-rigged sailboat, and he set out on one of the most audacious adventures ever contemplated by any sailor. He set out to circumnavigate the Americas, solo and nonstop. Here is what he did. On June 13 of last year, he left Annapolis on this small 27-foot sailboat. He sailed out of the Chesapeake Bay, he sailed up around Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Labrador, all the way up by Greenland--all by himself--and then sailed the Northwest Passage, all the way through the Northwest Passage here. If I remember right, he has been certified by the Scott Polar Institute in Cambridge, England; he has been recognized as the first person in recorded history to make it through the fabled Northwest Passage alone and nonstop in such a small sailboat. He came through the Northwest Passage, rounded Alaska, went from Alaska all the way down to Cape Horn. Again, if you know anything about the treacherous waters of Cape Horn, you know someone in a small 27-foot boat probably doesn't have much chance of making it, but he did it. He went around Cape Horn, all the way up the coast of South America, up through the Caribbean, and today as I stand here and speak, he is just outside of the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, off the coast of Virginia, the North Carolina-Virginia border, and is going to make landfall this Saturday in Annapolis, 313 days after he started--solo, nonstop, never touched land. This is one of the most historic adventures ever undertaken by a human being, solo, nonstop, around the Americas--313 days in treacherous waters. He has not set foot on dry land for the entire journey. He has not stopped. I have had the privilege of talking to Matt. I never met the young man--not yet--but I had the privilege of talking with him on his satellite phone just last week, when he said to me it would probably be the last phone call he would make because all of his equipment is now starting to fail. He said: It is like the boat is talking to me, and it knows the journey is almost over. His solar panels have died, his wind generator is gone, his engine doesn't work, and he is out of power. He is only under sail, he has no engine any longer, and he says that when big waves hit, the boat creeks and groans. He is just about to make it into the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. What a tremendous adventure. Right now he is about 15 miles off of Kitty Hawk, NC. So 313 days after he began, he will make landfall this Saturday at the National Sailing Hall of Fame dock in Annapolis, MD. That will be the first time he will set foot on dry land in 313 days. I am in awe of Matt's courage, his character, and his audacity to do this. He is in a class with a tiny group of explorers and adventurers, pathbreakers who defied odds to accomplish greatness. I think of Joshua Slocum, the first person to sail singlehandedly around the world. It took him 3 years. He covered 46,000 miles. He made many stops, but he did it between 1895 and 1898--the first known solo circumnavigation of the Earth. I think of Sir Francis Chichester, who sailed from Plymouth, England, in 1966, the first person to achieve a true circumnavigation of the world solo, from west to east, via the great capes. He did so in 226 days with one stop in Australia. I think of Dick Rutan and Jeana Yeager and their Voyager aircraft--now hanging in the Smithsonian--in 1986, the first to fly around the world nonstop without refueling. I think of the extraordinary feats of physical endurance and courage of Robert Peary in 1909, the first person to reach the North Pole; Roald Amundsen in 1911, the first person to reach the South Pole; and Sir Edmund Hillary in 1953, the first person to climb Mount Everest. Matt Rutherford now finds himself in this very exclusive company and club of audacious adventurers. However, I would say Matt Rutherford has in important ways surpassed the feats of, say, Slocum and Chichester because Slocum and Chichester made stops during their voyages. Matt is accomplishing his voyage solo, nonstop, on a small 36-year-old boat, 27 feet long, best suited for weekend sailors who do not want to venture outside of the Chesapeake Bay. As I said, the Scott Polar Institute in England has already recognized him as the first person in recorded history to make this sail solo through the Northwest Passage in a small sailboat. Here, again, is where Matt is in a class by himself. Why is he doing it? Yes, he is going to set a very fantastic record. It has never been done before. But he is doing it to raise money for Chesapeake Region Accessible Boating--CRAB for short. It is an Annapolis-based organization that provides sailing opportunities for physically or developmentally disabled persons. You can see now why I am so interested, as the lead sponsor of the Americans With Disabilities Act. I am deeply impressed by the fact that Matt has undertaken this historic voyage in a cause larger than himself to make it possible for more people with disabilities to have the opportunity to experience and enjoy boating and sailing. One of the fundamental goals of the Americans With Disabilities Act is that people with disabilities should be able to participate fully in all aspects of society, and that includes recreational opportunities such as sailing, which can be exhilarating and empowering for children and adults with a wide range of disabilities. I salute Matt for his courage. He is almost home. He will be here this Saturday. Here is the young man sitting on his boat. I assume that picture was taken when he was up in the Northwest Passage because he looks pretty cold, but he is a young man with extreme courage. What an audacious undertaking. People advised him no, that he could never do it, that the odds of him surviving through all these treacherous waters were very small, but he decided to do it nonetheless. He is setting a tremendous record. I salute him for wanting to share his love of sailing with the disability community, for using his adventure to raise awareness and expand access to sailing to Americans with disabilities. I say to all, if you want to learn more about Matt and the mission, you can go to his Web site. It is very easy to remember; it is just solotheamericas.org, www.solotheamericas. You can go back and follow him through this entire journey around the Americas-- solotheamericas.org. I applaud Matt Rutherford for his vision and spirit. I wish him safe passage during this final leg of this epic journey. I hope to have the honor of meeting him and thanking him upon his return. Matt Rutherford is one of those remarkable human beings who dream big, driven by big challenges, who refuse to accept the limits and boundaries so-called reasonable people readily acknowledge, who put aside fear in order to accomplish great and good things, not just for themselves but for others. That is Matt Rutherford. I again applaud him for his courage and for sticking with it. It is one of the great feats of ocean sailing that have taken place in the entire history of sailing the great oceans. He will be back this Saturday. As I said, we hope he has fair winds and a following sea for the next 4 or 5 days.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, at a recent HELP Committee hearing on education and the economy, representatives of the business community told us that it is not enough for our education system to produce graduates who can read, write, and do math. Employers need workers who can apply creativity, collaboration, and communication in their jobs to solve problems, produce ideas and make connections. These are the keys to innovation and success in the knowledge economy of the 21st century. Indeed, they are essential if we are to move our economy forward, create jobs, and ensure our national security. But I ask you, How can we produce graduates who are creative and collaborative if we don't value the arts in our society and teach it in our schools? Today is Arts Advocacy Day. Advocates for the arts have come to Washington to remind their elected officials about the importance of Federal investments in the arts. Why investment at the Federal level? Because arts are essential to the fabric of our society. Arts education teaches critical skills--not just creativity, but also a rigorous and practical application of other skills. The arts make us think. The arts improve our quality of life. The arts provide an outlet for personal and political expression. Collectively, our arts express who we are as a nation. This very building, the United States Capitol, an enduring symbol of freedom and democracy, is an especially powerful example. Federal funds built this building. Federal funds also support vital programs such as the Iowa Arts Council Big Yellow School Bus grants, to pay the costs of busing students to museums or live orchestra concerts. For many students, this is the only opportunity they have to experience the arts. It is imperative that we continue to promote a society where all citizens are exposed to the arts and where all students--no matter their socioeconomic background, community, family, or ability--have equitable access to a high-quality, public, well-rounded education that includes the arts. Unfortunately, recent data from the Department of Education show that inequities persist. Schools serving the poorest students are less likely to offer instruction in the arts. For example, availability of music instruction in secondary schools on average has remained at about 90 percent for the last 10 years. Meanwhile, it has actually decreased, from 100 percent to 81 percent for schools with the highest poverty concentration--a 19 percentage point decrease. We all want our kids to succeed in school, and to be inspired in school. Many students find the motivation to learn through participation in the visual arts, drama, band, orchestra, choir, or dance. Every child should have the opportunity to do something that inspires and excites them, that teaches them creativity, collaboration, and communication, no matter their socio-economic status, their neighborhood, their local tax base. Research has shown that arts education improves not only children's creativity, but also their ability to learn and be productive in school, as well as their self- confidence and social skills. Christine Dunn, a music teacher at Harlan Community Elementary School in Harlan, IA, wrote me a letter urging me to continue my support for the arts. She told me that without the arts, ``our students may never be able to see, understand or express feelings, thoughts and ideas fully. I try to imagine a world without the arts and it looks very bleak. The arts give us creativity and the freedom to be ourselves.'' Today on the occasion of Arts Advocacy Day, I would like to recognize the outstanding advocacy of Iowans like Ms. Dunn, Barry Griswell, and Suku Radia--and the wonderful contributions that Iowans have made to the arts throughout our nation's history.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Maria Worthen, Brendan Iglehart, and Andrea Jarcho of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in open session on Wednesday, April 18, 2012 at 10 a.m., in SD 430 Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled Effective Strategies for Accelerated Learning. For further information regarding this meeting, please contact the committee on (202) 224 5501. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in open session on Thursday, April 19, 2012 at 10 a.m., in SD 430 Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled Time Takes Its Toll: Delays in OSHA's Standard-Setting Process and the Impact on Worker Safety. For further information regarding this meeting, please contact the committee on (202) 224 5441.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Lucy Stein and Sarah Newman of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about a truly remarkable American--a truly remarkable visionary, a dreamer, an adventurer, a doer, and, most important, a young man who has devoted himself to the service to others far and above the normal call of duty. This young man's name is Matt Rutherford. I will tell my colleagues about him and his remarkable adventure and his feat that has been unparalleled. He is a 30-year-old Ohioan, and here is what he has been doing since June 13 of last year. On June 13 of last year, he set sail in his 36- year-old, 27-foot Albin Vega boat named St. Brendan. He left Annapolis, MD, on June 13, 2011, and is attempting to sail nearly 25,000 miles from Annapolis, MD, up the east coast, all the way around Newfoundland, up by Greenland, through the Northwest Passage, all the way over to Alaska, then from Alaska all the way down to Cape Horn, around Cape Horn, up South America, and back into Annapolis. Now, what is so remarkable about that? Well, it has never been done before. He is doing this solo, and he is doing it nonstop. Think about that. He has never touched land and has not stopped since he left here 289 days ago. The trip has taken Matt through some of the Earth's most treacherous oceans, including the Arctic Ocean, the oceans up around Alaska, Aleutian Straits, of course all the way down through the Pacific, around treacherous Cape Horn, and all this in a 27-foot boat, the kind of boat most sailors would maybe be comfortable on off the Eastern Shore in the Chesapeake Bay but not on a journey such as this. As I said, he has not set foot on dry land for the entire journey--a remarkable adventure. If my colleagues wish to learn more about him, they can go to his Web site, which is called www.solotheamericas.org, and they can read all about his amazing journey. He updates his trip. The last update was yesterday. He is right now east of Cuba and the Dominican Republic, right down here, and his last posting was what he called ``Home Stretch.'' He hopes to enter the Chesapeake Bay by April 12, making his first landfall in nearly a year in Annapolis on April 13. The Scott Polar Institute in Cambridge, England, has recognized Matt as the first person in history to make it through the fabled Northwest Passage alone, nonstop, and on such a small sailboat. It has never been done before. One would think that would be enough. No. He has continued on his incredible, remarkable journey. Now, one might say: Why is he doing that? He is just doing it to set a record. He has set a lot of records already. Why is he doing it? He is doing it to raise money for Chesapeake Region Accessible Boating. It is an Annapolis-based organization to provide sailing opportunities for physically or developmentally disabled people--for kids and young people who are disabled but who like to sail. And this organization, Chesapeake Region Accessible Boating, does just that--provides them that opportunity. I had the privilege of talking to Matt Rutherford last week. He called me on his satellite phone. It was an exciting phone call for me because I have watched--I don't know Matt Rutherford personally, but I have watched his journey, and, of course, I am very enthused about the Chesapeake Region Accessible Boating organization. So in talking with him by phone I was really impressed by his courage, his character, his audacity. Above all, I am impressed by the fact that he is doing this for a cause larger than himself to make it possible for more people with disabilities to share in his passion for sailing. Helen Keller once said, ``It is a terrible thing to see and yet have no vision.'' Well, Matt Rutherford has the gift of sight. He also has the gift of vision and indomitable courage. He is one of those remarkable human beings who dream big, who are driven by big challenges, who refuse to accept the limits and the boundaries that so- called reasonable people want to place on us. What is more, he has placed himself in the service of others less fortunate than himself. As the lead sponsor of the Americans With Disabilities Act, I am particularly impressed that Matt is using his voyage to raise money to help people with disabilities to partake in this wonderful pastime of sailing--something which I have enjoyed all my adult life since I was in the Navy. He is doing this so that children and adults can have the same opportunity. The reason I am so enthused about this is that one of the fundamental aspects of the ADA--the Americans With Disabilities Act--is that people with disabilities should be able to participate fully in all aspects of society, and that includes access to recreational opportunities such as sailing, which can be exhilarating and empowering for children and adults with a wide range of disabilities. I salute Matt Rutherford for his courage, for his love of sailing, and being willing to share that with the disabled community, and for using this adventure, this almost death-defying trip. For anyone who knows what it is like to be on a 27-foot boat, to go from here all the way down to Cape Horn, that is incredible. Any one of numerous storms or anything could have sunk his little boat. He has had a lot of different adventures. He sprung a leak. He has been working on that leak ever since. Someplace around here, South America, he lost his engine, so he no longer has an engine, and he keeps patching his leak all the time. Every day he has to patch his leak. So he is fighting a leak every day in his boat. Just going around Cape Horn with the tremendous waves and cross currents around Cape Horn--to take a small boat through there singlehandedly is, as I said, death-defying. Right up in here, right off the coast of Brazil someplace, he almost got run over by a freighter. At night, he had gone to sleep for a little bit. He has a light in his boat so people can see him at night. He woke up and he looked out and saw this red light and a green light with nothing in between it coming at him. Well, it was a huge freighter, and as the Presiding Officer knows, red on one side, green on the other, bearing down on him. He turned, and it missed him just by a few feet and almost sunk him in the bow wave of the freighter that went by. So those are the kinds of things Matt has lived with almost every day for 289 days. Matt has great skill, great courage. He is making a difference. He is going to make a difference for a lot of people. I especially think of young people with disabilities who would like to sail, and because of this organization, Chesapeake Bay Accessible Boating, they will have the opportunity to do so. So, again, this is one of the nice things we see happening in America. We think there are no individuals with that individual kind of courage to take on the elements, to risk their lives. Well, we still have them, and Matt Rutherford stands in a line of great adventurers in our history. I applaud him for his brave spirit, and I wish him safe passage on his home stretch and on the final leg of his epic journey. He joins the ranks of Joshua Slocum who, on Spray, was the first person to circumnavigate the globe solo. He wrote a wonderful book: ``Sailing Alone Around the World.'' He did it before the turn of the last century. He did it in the 1890s. He also joins the ranks of the next great person who sailed alone, Sir Francis Chichester, on the Gypsy Moth IV not too many years ago, who circumnavigated the globe. So to Joshua Slocum and Sir Francis Chichester we can now add Matt Rutherford, on St. Brendan, for an incredible journey around both of the Americas, solo and nonstop. It has never been done before, and it may never be done again. And he is doing it for the best of all reasons. A courageous young man, Matt Rutherford. He is going to be back, as I said, hopefully by April 12. I hope to meet him. I have never met the young man, but I have followed his journey and his courage. He is the kind of person who just gives heart and spirit to all of us, to know there is nothing we can't do if we set our minds and our hearts to it and if we have the willpower and the courage to take it on. So I hope to meet him when he comes back--again, this young man of great courage. I hope the home stretch is one with fair winds and following seas. Before I yield the floor, I mentioned that Matt Rutherford was doing this for the Chesapeake Region Accessible Boating organization that provides boating for people with disabilities. I would urge anyone who is interested in this and who wants to see what a great organization it is, they can go to their Web site--it is very simple-- www.crabsailing.org. It is a great organization that helps people with disabilities to take up sailing and learn the art and the craft of sailing. So, again, hats off to a remarkable young man on a remarkable journey. I wish him fair winds and a following sea in his home stretch. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as one of the Senators who wrote the Americans With Disabilities Act and whose name appears as the lead sponsor of that bill that was passed 22 years ago, I oppose Senator DeMint's effort to bypass the regular order and to amend the ADA to remove the ability of the Justice Department to regulate the accessibility of swimming pools. Twenty-two years have passed and periodically things such as this come up, but I believe the ADA has withstood the test of time. We look around at an America that has been transformed, not just for the disabled but for everyone. Everyone utilizes universal design now in the fact that things are easily accessible for everyone. When we initially started putting in ramps, we thought only people using wheelchairs would use those ramps. I ask anyone here, go out and watch who uses those ramps. It is not just people in wheelchairs. The elderly use it, mothers with baby carriages use those ramps. You would be amazed how many people find those ramps a lot easier than climbing up and down stairs. That is one example. But I want to be clear about what is at stake here. The Americans With Disabilities Act is a civil rights law that guarantees equal rights and equal opportunities for individuals with disabilities. Senator DeMint's legislation attempts to interfere with the Justice Department's ability to enforce the statute, a civil rights statute. Again, it would be a dangerous precedent for the Senate to set, and that is why I object to his bill. Let me get to the point here on the swimming pools. In September of 2010, the Justice Department published final regulations implementing title II and title III of the ADA. These new regulations addressed a number of issues that have arisen over the past 22 years, one of those being access to swimming pools and other recreational facilities. The requirement that has prompted Senator DeMint's bill has to do with swimming pool accessibility. Under the new regulations, newly constructed or altered pools covered by the ADA are required to provide at least one accessible means of entry into the water for people with disabilities, which must either be a sloped entry into the water or a pool lift that is capable of being independently operated by a person with a disability. Larger pools-- pools larger than 300 feet in length, which is a big pool, Olympic size--are required to provide a second accessible means of entry. Again, these were promulgated in September of 2010, so it has been almost 1\1/2\ years. These requirements apply in the case of a newly constructed pool or one that has been significantly altered as a part of a renovation. Again, new pools or pools undergoing significant renovation. In addition, since the ADA requires that public accommodations remove architectural barriers where it is readily achievable to do so, some existing public accommodations may be required to also increase access to pools for people with disabilities under title III's readily achievable standard. Let me repeat: readily achievable standard. The readily achievable standard is not one-size-fits-all. I heard my friend from South Carolina saying this is a one-size-fits-all. That is not so. It is a very flexible standard. For example, if the equipment is not available--I heard Senator DeMint say the equipment may not even be available. If it is not available, by definition it is not readily achievable and, therefore, not required by the ADA. If it is not available, by definition it is not readily achievable. So it is not a one-size-fits-all. It is very flexible. It means ``without much difficulty or expense.'' That is the law. So what constitutes readily achievable in a particular case is an individualized analysis based on a number of factors, such as what the cost would be, the resources of the entity involved. In short, it is what a business can afford to do. So readily achievable for a Fairmont Hotel would be a lot different than readily achievable for a mom-and- pop motel that has a small swimming pool--much different. It is what the business can afford to do. I know the American Hotel and Lodging Association has been upset about the application of this readily achievable standard and what their members may be required to do. But again, keep in mind, the pool requirements from September of 2010 were required to go into effect by March 15 of this year, 1\1/2\ years later. But there were some misunderstandings, and so the Department of Justice has extended the deadline to May 21. Again, I understand that the Justice Department has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking asking for comments about extending the deadline an additional 4 months, until September 17 of this year. The deadline for those written comments is April 4. Again, the process is working just as it has worked for the last 22 years. When we were working on the ADA back in the 1980s, we heard from a number of industries that requiring accessibility for entities such as restaurants, retail stores, theaters was going to create serious problems for small businesses. I remember having numerous hearings in my subcommittee about that. So in an effort to address this concern and to help small businesses comply with the ADA, we created a disabled access tax credit. We heard Senator DeMint talk about the costs, but we instituted a tax credit in the IRS Code. The two sides: For businesses with 30 or fewer full-time employees or with total revenues of $1 million or less per year, they get a tax credit. It can be used for adaptations to existing facilities. The amount of credit is 50 percent of eligible access expenditures. It is up to $5,000 a year. I don't know what a lift might cost. I think the figures my friend used were a little high, but let's say it costs $10,000. You get a tax credit of up to 5,000 for that, so it really only costs you up to $5,000. You get a 50-percent tax credit for that. In addition, section 190 of the IRS Code provides a tax deduction. For businesses of all sizes for costs incurred in removing barriers to meet the requirements of the ADA, the maximum deduction is $15,000 per year that they can deduct. So these two tax incentives certainly help the hotel industry offset any expenses associated with installing access to swimming pools. Again, I want to say the rule does not require a permanent pool lift, as my friend from South Carolina said. That is not so. It is a flexible standard under readily achievable. If it is not readily achievable for existing pools, it is not required. So if you had a mom-and-pop motel with a very small swimming pool, if a permanent lift is not readily achievable under the outlines I have just stated, then it is not required. Again, we have had 22 years, a lot of court cases. Some went to the Supreme Court. Then in 2008, this body unanimously--without one dissenting vote, this body and the House passed the ADA Act amendments to overcome three rulings by the Supreme Court. We passed it unanimously. The second President Bush signed it into law. And, again, we moved the ball forward in making this country more accessible for everyone, including people with disabilities. So as I say, it has stood the test of time. There is no reason to curtail the Department of Justice enforcement authority. There is no reason to bypass the regular process and to do what Senator DeMint is trying to address. Let's remember how popular the accessible improvements that the ADA required turned out to be for all Americans. I mentioned earlier the curb cuts, elevators, captioning on television screens, all of the things that seem to be commonplace today that we take for granted. I am confident that the improvements in swimming pool access that these new regulations will require will turn out to be popular. Actually, they may turn out to be very popular with hotel guests who don't have disabilities. But think about it in terms of families who are traveling--it may be an adult, may even be a child with a disability, and they want to use the hotel pool, yet there is not a lift or there is not a ramp. So one person from that family is barred from using those facilities. As I said, keep in mind, it is readily achievable. If it is not readily achievable, they don't have to do it. That is why I objected to Senator DeMint's request to bypass the regular process. I hope the Justice Department will continue. I don't have a view one way or the other on the extension to September. If the Justice Department feels that is okay and most of the comments that have come in ask for that extension, I see nothing wrong with extending it another 5 or 6 months. But at some point the law must take hold, and we have to meet our obligations to remove the barriers to accessibility in our country. We have come a long way since the ADA. Let's continue the wonderful progress we have made in the last 22 years. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I join with the entire Senate family in congratulating my great friend, the distinguished senior Senator from Maryland, Barbara Mikulski, on becoming the longest serving female Member of Congress in our Nation's history. She reached that milestone recently, having served in Congress for 12,858 days--more than 35 years--surpassing the previous longest serving Member of Congress, the late Representative Edith Nourse Rogers. Representative Rogers famously quipped, ``The first 30 years are the hardest.'' But I dare say that Senator Mikulski has had a somewhat different experience. As with other pathbreaking women, she has encountered sexism and discrimination. But from her first day in the House in 1977 right up to today, in her much respected role as dean of women Senators, Barbara Mikulski has been a singularly formidable and forceful public servant. Pity the Representative or Senator who has made the mistake of in any way underestimating this remarkable person. For three and a half decades in Congress, Barbara Mikulski has been an outspoken and proud progressive--a tireless advocate for quality public education, access to health care, and a strong safety net for those she calls ``the least of these our sisters and brothers''-- including the elderly, people with disabilities, and the poor. Her passion for social and economic justice was nurtured by the nuns who taught her at Catholic school in working-class east Baltimore. Senator Mikulski's legislative accomplishments are too numerous to cite here. But I am particularly grateful for the lead role that she played in early 2009 in passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act--the very first bill signed into law by President Obama. This law reversed an outrageous Supreme Court decision that allowed discrimination against women to go unpunished. But, as Senator Mikulski knows all too well, even the Lilly Ledbetter Act leaves in place an outrageous status quo where women are paid only 78 cents for every $1 that their male counterparts are paid. That is why she and I have continued to work closely together to advance the cause of equal pay. We are the respective leads on the two Democratic equal pay bills in the Senate. As chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I want to pay special tribute to the extraordinary role she has long played on our committee. Senator Mikulski's legislative skills and leadership were critically important in crafting and passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 2 years ago--an achievement that she calls one of the ``greatest social justice initiatives'' of our time. She led the team that wrote the quality title in the bill, insisting that higher quality care does not have to be higher cost care. Thanks to Senator Mikulski, the health care reform law includes a whole range of provisions that shift the emphasis--rewarding providers not for quantity of service but for quality of service. I would add that throughout the debate on health care reform and during the many months the bill was being written, Senator Mikulski was a fierce advocate for women's health and for ending the brazen discrimination against women by health insurance companies. On the HELP Committee, and also in her role as chair of the Appropriations subcommittee that funds the Legal Services Corporation, Senator Mikulski has been a great leader on another issue near and dear to my heart: legal services for the poor. She has fought hard--and it has always been an uphill struggle--to provide adequate funding so that people without resources are not barred from the courthouse door. Of course, Senator Mikulski has also been one of the Senate's leading proponents of national and community service. In 2009, she was the Senate manager for the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which retooled our national service programs for the 21st century and provided expanded opportunities for young people to gain valuable skills and experience by helping neighbors in need. Let me share a brief anecdote that illustrates the remarkable role that Senator Mikulski plays in the body and the respect that she commands among her colleagues. We all remember the debate, in late February, on the Blunt amendment, which would have allowed employers to deny health insurance coverage for contraception. In my role as chair of the HELP Committee, I was invited to attend a press conference in the LBJ Room of the Capitol organized by Senator Mikulski to speak out against the amendment. Let me tell you, this was a remarkable event. Senator Mikulski spoke first, with tremendous power and passion. One by one, other Senators spoke--women who, over the decades, have been counseled and mentored by Senator Mikulski: Senator Patty Murray of Washington, Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein of California, and Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire. Senator Mikulski's message, echoed by the other Senators, was characteristically loud and clear: Decisions about medical care should be made by a woman and her doctor, not a woman and her boss. Needless to say, Senator Mikulski carried the day; the amendment was defeated. Other Senators have noted Senator Mikulski's many firsts, including the first woman elevated to a leadership position in the Senate. I would simply add that Barbara Mikulski is also first when it comes to a Senator being true to her roots, a fierce and effective champion for her State and passionate fighter for social and economic justice. Again, I salute the Senator on reaching the historic milestone as the longest serving female Member of Congress, and I wish her many more years of distinguished service to our Nation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tyler Bischoff, Sam Jones, and Nicole Burda of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's proceedings.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Again, Mr. President, tomorrow we celebrate the second anniversary of the signing of the affordable care act into law. Our Democratic leader, Senator Reid, in his opening remarks today, outlined the tremendous progress we have made. I listened to the comments made by our distinguished Republican leader, and all I heard was: Repeal ObamaCare, repeal ObamaCare. But I never heard what they want to replace it with. They just want to go back to the old system where the insurance companies ran everything before, where people were thrown off their policies because they had an illness, where because of preexisting conditions people could not get health care coverage, where we had this big doughnut hole which we are now closing for the elderly? The one aspect I want to focus on this morning in my brief time is an extraordinary element of the affordable care act that is not being talked about a lot but which members of the committee I now am privileged to chair, the HELP Committee, worked so hard to include in the affordable care act; that is, the array of provisions that promote wellness, disease prevention, and public health. Taken together, these provisions have begun to jump-start America's transformation into a genuine wellness society. They are transforming our current sick care system into a true health care system. I have said this many times: We do not have a health care system in America. We have a sick care system. If people get sick, they get care--one way or the other. But there is very little out there to help people keep healthy and to maintain wellness and to keep them from going to the hospital in the first place. Now, that would be a true health care system, and that is what we have begun to establish with the affordable care act, by preventing chronic diseases, enabling people to stay healthy, and stay out of hospitals in the first place. Right now in the United States about 75 percent of all our health care spending--75 percent of the Nation's health care spending--is on chronic diseases. Only 4 percent is spent for prevention. So during the last year we have data for--2005--the United States spent about $2 trillion on health care. Of every $1 spent, 75 cents went toward treating patients with chronic diseases, many of which are preventable. Only 4 cents went toward prevention. That ought to tell us something right there. That is the old system, and that is the system the Republicans want us to go back to: Spending more and more to treat people after they get sick rather than trying to put something forward to keep people healthy. Well, in the affordable care act we have tremendous opportunities to again move us to more prevention and wellness. We have made historically new investments in this area of wellness, prevention, and public health. Here is one example of that, as shown on this chart. Before our health care reform bill, our law, was passed, just take the issue of colorectal cancer screening; we know, if people get it early and detect it early, their chances of survival are tremendous. If people detect it too late, then they are going to be in the hospital, and they are going to have cancer, they are not going to live. But we know, by people getting a colorectal cancer screening early, we can prevent a lot of unnecessary deaths and illnesses and treatments later on. Cholesterol screening: We know if people get good cholesterol screening, they can get on either a drug or a good diet, an exercise program, reducing the prevalence of heart disease. Tobacco cessation: Need we keep repeating around here how much it costs our society from the plague of tobacco use? Well, here is where we were before health care reform, as shown on this chart. About 68 percent were covered for colorectal cancer screenings, about 57 percent were covered for cholesterol screenings, and only 4 percent were covered for tobacco cessation. After health care reform, now there is 100 percent--100 percent-- coverage for colorectal screenings with no copays and deductibles, I might add; 100 percent coverage for cholesterol screenings, and 100 percent coverage for tobacco cessation. That is prevention, that is wellness, keeping people healthy in the first place. What do the Republicans want? They want to go back to what it was. We have made too much progress in prevention and wellness to go back to the old ways of just treating people after they get sick. Now, again, we have been able to promote a lot of activities around the country to promote health and wellness. For example, in Illinois, the State made improvements to its sidewalks and marked crossings to increase student physical activity levels. You might say: Well, big deal. Well, it is a big deal. Because of these improvements, the number of students who are walking to school has doubled--doubled--and it is expected to save the school system about $67,000 a year just on bus costs. So kids are healthier and we save money. In Alabama, Mobile County is using funds from this prevention fund to support tobacco quit lines to help residents live tobacco free--again, under the Tobacco Cessation Program. Officials enacted a comprehensive smoke-free policy expected to protect 13,000 of their residents--this is in Mobile County, AL--from being exposed to secondhand smoke. All across America, more and more is being invested in prevention. We know that, for example, a 5-percent reduction in the obesity rate--just a 5-percent reduction in the obesity rate--will yield more than $600 billion in savings on health care costs over 20 years. Again, our prevention fund is out there getting people the necessary support and information they need to reduce obesity. So with the misguided efforts to repeal the health care reform law, again, most Americans know what is at stake. They are going to lose a lot of these prevention activities that enable us to take charge of our own health care to make sure we get our colonoscopies on time, our mammogram screenings. Every woman in America now over age 40 gets a free mammogram screening--no copays, no deductibles. The Republicans want to take that away from the women of this country. Colonoscopies, as I said, without copays or deductibles, Republicans want to take that away. Annual physicals. We know a lot of people do not get annual physicals because it costs money. It costs them. Now they can get an annual physical free--no copays, no deductibles. Republicans want to take that away. Again, I think we have to ask the question--every time I hear the Republicans talking about doing away with ObamaCare or the affordable care act, we have to ask: Are we going to cut short this transformation into a wellness society in preventing diseases, keeping people healthy in the first place? I think the answer is clear. Americans are not going to allow all these hard-earned protections and benefits in the affordable care act to be a taken away. We are not going to be dragged backward. We are going to continue our march forward to make ourselves more healthy. We are not going back to the old system, where only a little over half the people in this country got cholesterol screening, 68 percent got colorectal cancer screening. We want people to get early screening, early support services for preventive care so they stay healthy. Not only is it going to help our family budgets, it is going to help our Federal budget if we have people healthier and not going to the hospital in the first place. This is one of the big aspects of the affordable care act that is not talked about a lot. But to me it is one of the most important aspects of moving us, again, to a society where we are not just relying on people going to the hospital and paying for high hospital bills and things such as that in the future. I am going to yield the floor. I just wanted to make those comments about one aspect of the affordable care act. Of course, we do know there are many other benefits in the affordable care act people do not want to lose. Right now, we ban lifetime limits, which helps more than 100 million people. They want to take that away. Republicans want to take that away. We cover vital preventive services, which I just went over; young people remaining on their parents' coverage up to age 26-- more than 2.5 million helped so far. Republicans want to take that away. They want to end all that. I do not think the American people want to end it. I think the American people want to move forward with health care reform because we have made too much progress--too much progress in making sure health insurance is affordable, available. I guess I have just one more thing to say, if my friend from Rhode Island will let me. Everyone in this Senate body belongs to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Do you know what. We have coverage for preexisting conditions. We have no lifetime bans in our policies. Yet that is what we did. Remember the debate? We wanted to say to the American people: Whatever we have, we want you to have too. We put that in the affordable care act. The Republicans say: We are going to take that away from the American people but keep it for ourselves. I do not think so. I do not think so. I do not think the American people want to say: You Senators and you Congressmen can keep all that, but you can take it away from all of us. We are not going to do it. We are not going to go backward. I yield the floor for my distinguished friend from Rhode Island who played such a pivotal role in getting the affordable care act through on our committee and has been one of the more eloquent spokespersons on this health care bill in the last couple years.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 21, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, 2 years ago President Obama signed into law what I believe was the most forward-thinking and humane reform of our health care system since Medicare. Just like the Republicans opposed Medicare when it came in, they still want to get rid of it. If we look at the Ryan budget that came out, what do they want to do? They want to privatize Medicare. They have been at it ever since. They do not want this humane reform we passed 2 years ago. When the affordable care act became law, I said we have made America a more compassionate and a more just society. I believe this with even greater conviction now. In listening to my colleagues, my friends on the other side of the aisle, one would think this is all just about little nuts and bolts and this and that, but it is about humaneness. It is about compassion and about justice and, yes, it is about making the system work better for patients, not just for insurance companies and the insurance industry. Now that we have moved ahead to implement the law, the results have been striking. Every American now is protected against the abusive insurance company practices of the past. Let me put it another way. Because of the health care reform law, Americans now have protections that every Senator in this Chamber has enjoyed for years under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. We now have extended that to all Americans. Listening to my friends on the other side of the aisle, they want to take it away from Americans but keep it for themselves. Oh, no; they do not want to give it up. I think what is good for Senators ought to be good for the American people. The young lady shown on this chart is Emily Schlichting. She testified before my committee last year, and this is what she said: Young people are the future of this country and we are the most affected by 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. Why does she say that? Because she suffers from a rare autoimmune condition which insurance companies would not even cover. But because we have said they cannot now discriminate if someone has a preexisting condition, Emily gets insurance coverage. Plus, she can stay on her parents' health insurance program. So far, the law has extended coverage to more than 2\1/2\ million young people such as Emily. Yet the Republicans want to take it away. They want to take away Emily Schlichting's insurance coverage. That is what this is all about. They want to repeal the affordable care act-- ObamaCare. What that will mean is that 2\1/2\ million people similar to Emily will lose their insurance. But they do not talk about that. They do not talk about that. Here is the coverage Americans have right now. We have banned lifetime limits. Let me tell everyone about Ross Daniels and Amy Ward from West Des Moines, IA. After developing a rare lung infection on a summer trip, Amy needed intensive treatment, including a course of medication costing--get this--$1,600 a dose--$1,600 a dose. Her insurance policy had a $1 million lifetime limit. Without our health care reform's ban on lifetime limits, this couple would have had to declare bankruptcy. After this experience, Ross said he can't understand why opponents of the law want to repeal it. He said: It is hard for us to believe that so many of the GOP candidates would have us go back in time where an illness like this would have forced us, or any other family for that matter, into bankruptcy. Listen to what Republicans are saying. They want to take this protection away from Amy Ward and Ross Daniels and millions of other Americans. There are 100 million people being helped by the ban on lifetime limits. We have also covered vital preventive services free of charge. That has benefited more than 80 million people who now get free preventive care. It allows young people to remain on their parents' insurance plans until they are age 26. I can't tell you how many families I have talked to in my State of Iowa who have said this has been a godsend to them and to their kids. Here is the preventive portion. We all know prevention is the best thing we can do to change our sick care system into a health care system. Here is what we did. Here is what the affordable care act does on prevention. Before health care reform, colorectal cancer screening was covered only 68 percent by insurance companies, cholesterol screening was only covered by 57 percent, tobacco cessation only 4 percent. Under the affordable care act, colorectal cancer screening, cholesterol, and tobacco cessation all are covered at 100 percent by every insurance company. Madam President, 100 hundred percent, not 57 percent or 68 percent but 100 percent. We all know that early screening means people live longer and it cuts down on health care costs. So millions now receive free preventive care, and 86 million Americans had at least one free preventive service in 2011. Almost 1 million Iowans, in my State, received at least one free preventive service in 2011. Yet Republicans want to take this away. That is what this is about. But Americans now have preventive care. They now are able to keep their kids on their policies until they are age 26. They now have a ban on lifetime limits. We now have a ban for children up to age 19 on preexisting conditions. That is all they want to do; they want to take this away. I say, don't let them take this away from the American people.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, how much time remains on our side?