Tom Harkin

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise about the most important job that faces the Senate in the remainder of the year; that is, extending the unemployment benefits for millions of unemployed Americans struggling to find a job. I wish I didn't have to be down here talking about this today. I wish it weren't necessary to debate whether we should continue the Federal unemployment insurance program. I wish everyone in this Chamber would acknowledge that the recovery is still a work in progress and that we would agree about the critical need to continue to support struggling workers and their families. We have never failed to extend benefits in the past when unemployment was this high. But, unfortunately, in today's hyperpartisan atmosphere, even the most commonsense policies can turn into political footballs, and the unemployment insurance program seems to be no exception. The extreme right is on the attack, blaming the victims who have been the hardest hit by this economic crisis. In the same breath that they push for more cuts in corporate taxes and cuts in taxes to high-income individuals, Republican leaders argue we can't afford to extend unemployment benefits for people who are struggling to find a job. Congresswoman Bachmann, a candidate for President, recently went so far to say: ``If anyone will not work, neither should he eat.'' In an economy where there are four unemployed workers for every available job, the cruelty of that comment is simply astonishing. There are 13 million unemployed Americans right now. Actually, I think the figure is probably a little bit higher than that. They are desperately looking for any job they can find, many relying on unemployment benefits to put food on the table for their children. Six million Americans will be cut off this last lifeline if Congress does not renew the benefits for the long-term unemployed--6 million who will be cut off right after the holiday season. I hope no one in this body on either side of the aisle will say they deserve this additional hardship during this holiday season. There are real people and real families behind these numbers. They are our friends and neighbors. I have heard from so many of these hard- working people from my home State of Iowa and across the country. Their stories are truly heartbreaking. A woman from Des Moines recently wrote me: I was laid off in July 2011. I recently attended a class at the unemployment office in Des Moines, where I was informed that my unemployment will cease as of December the 31st if any extensions that are currently in place are discontinued. The average person is currently unemployed for 40 weeks, which is much longer than the 26 weeks that is available [without] any extensions. I was the main breadwinner in our family and if my unemployment would cease before I find a job, we would forced to be on welfare, food stamps, and other government subsidies. We would also lose our home. I hope that you consider the many other people that are probably in the same situation as I am and hope that you will keep the current extensions in place. A woman from Stanton, IA, writes: I lost a great job in June of 2010 and have been receiving unemployment benefits since then. . . . If not for the unemployment [benefits], I don't know how we would make it. I continue to look for a better paying job but as you probably know, Montgomery County, Iowa has had the highest unemployment rate in Iowa. It's been tough. . . . Will appreciate your support in extending unemployment benefits as I continue my quest for a new position. The main reason folks need their benefits to continue is they simply cannot find new work, even after exhausting their benefits. There are simply not enough jobs in this struggling economy. How can we even think about abruptly terminating these benefits right now, cutting off the last lifeline to Americans in dire need? A man from Estherville, IA, wrote: I woke up last week to find my benefits exhausted but no closer to finding a job. I do everything possible to find work but nothing materializes. Age-discrimination is rampant and there is nothing an individual can do about it. . . . Right now, after working since I was 12 years old, I'm facing hunger and hopelessness at 57 years of age. A man from West Des Moines wrote: I'm a home designer/architect and have been laid off three times since 2007, after working almost 16 years at one firm. I have now decided to go back to school to try to find a different career in information technology. I hate not having a job, and want to work but there's just not anything out there in architecture. Everyone seems to have circled the wagons and are not hiring. Please help. A woman from Madrid, IA, writes: I lost my job (of 32 years) 2\1/2\ years ago. I lived off my severance for the first year. Then savings and then went on unemployment. Now my unemployment has run out. I have had a few interview[s] without any luck. I have been working part time for minimum wage and I only get 15 hours a week in. It's the only job that I could find. This is just a sampling of the letters we get in our office. But it is clear people want to work. They desperately want to work. Later this week, the committee I chair, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, will hold a hearing to look at the reasons so many millions of workers who want to work are unable to get back to new jobs quickly. We will hear from experts, workers, and community leaders about the barriers facing the long-term unemployed, especially those over the age of 50. But there are some things we don't need an expert to tell us. We know people can't find new jobs because there are so few jobs out there. As I said, right now, more than 13 million people are officially counted as actively looking for work. But that is an understatement. There are millions more people with part-time jobs, of necessity, who want full- time work, millions more on top of that who have basically stopped looking for work because they think a job search will be fruitless. They have already tried time and time again and they have given up. But if they had a job, if they got a job, they would take it. When we add up all that, with a number of young people who have not entered the workforce--maybe they have looked for work, they can't find it, they are young, and especially if they are young and African American, the unemployment rate soars to 30 to 40 percent. They can't find a job. If we add that all up, we are talking about nearly 28 million unemployed and marginally employed people in America. There are many other barriers to reemployment. I have talked about older workers. Not only have many of them gone through their retirement savings, many have lost their home that they spent decades paying a mortgage on, they have been unable to send their kids to college, and on top of that, they face the indignity of being passed over in favor of younger workers simply because of their age. Again, it is not to say that younger workers have an easy time. I have also many stories of young people, many with college degrees, who can't find work. They are piecing together a meager existence on part- time service jobs that waste the time, effort, and money they have poured into an expensive education. I can't tell you how many young people I have talked to who have a college degree, they are not working in their chosen profession, but they are working at mostly part-time work or at service-oriented jobs that they know will not last them a lifetime, and service-oriented jobs that pay them a pittance compared to what they should be earning with their college degree. Still other workers hear they cannot be considered by employers because they have been unemployed for too long. This is so, even when a recruiter tells them they are perfectly well qualified for the job. More workers want to move in order to take advantage of a new opportunity they have heard about elsewhere but, guess what, their house is underwater. Not physically. That means they owe more on their mortgage than the house is worth and they cannot sell it. Or they have been out of work so long they have no money left to even afford to move. They cannot even afford to pack up the U-Haul and move someplace. Still other workers have trouble with transportation or childcare or other day-to-day issues that make it much harder to get an employer to take a chance on them. Someone came up and said to me one time: You know, for people who do not get a job, there are places in this country where there are jobs. They can move. It is a free country. I said: What about a single mother who has two kids and she relies upon her mother as a babysitter, as a childcare person to take care of the kids when she is out working on a minimum wage job, maybe part time? How is she going to pack up and move those kids when she has, frankly, free help from her mother? These are real barriers that real people face every day of their lives. These problems illustrate why the long-term unemployed who are working hard and playing by the rules still cannot get a job because of the factors beyond their control. Rather than chastising the victims, we should be giving a hand up to people in their hour of greatest need and help them to get back into the workforce. This support is critical, not only for the workers and families affected but for our economy overall. Research shows that for every dollar of unemployed benefits that is spent, we generate $2 in economic activity. Why is that? Because this money is not saved, it is not put into a shoe box, it is spent on essentials, helping businesses up and down Main Street in communities across the country. In addition, if unemployment benefits are extended, we will save about 560,000 jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute. By contrast, if we fail to renew these benefits, our economy will be deprived of many billions of dollars of economic activity next year. In the end, this will have a negative impact on overall gross domestic product. On the one hand, with benefits we boost our economy with a potent return on investment, we help people in their hour of need, and we meet our moral obligations as a society. But without benefits, we hurt our economy by shrinking consumer demand, by destroying jobs, and we do not meet our moral obligation as a caring government and a caring people. There is a strong economic case for renewing unemployment insurance, but I also say there is a strong human case for extending the benefits. Where is our basic human compassion? The thought of letting these benefits expire is unconscionable, especially during this Christmas season. After looking for work for at least 6 months but often more, many of these people already have lost their jobs, their homes, their savings, and they are now at risk of losing their last lifeline, the roughly $300 a week they receive in unemployment benefits. The bills do not stop coming when someone loses his or her job. The rent or mortgage, the electricity, car payments--all have to be made. The family still has to buy food, gasoline, medicine, school supplies, clothes. Unemployment benefits are a lifeline for the millions of folks who are living without an income and trying to survive. These benefits kept more than 3 million people from falling into poverty last year. We have a moral obligation, those of us privileged to serve in the Senate and the House, to continue the Federal unemployment insurance programs while the economy continues to slowly recover. We cannot allow these benefits to expire. We cannot allow millions of our friends, neighbors, and relatives to sink into absolute poverty and desperation. We cannot fail to take action because that failure will result in families being put out on the street, children going to bed hungry, families left to shiver in the cold of their unheated homes. I urge my colleagues to vote on this matter as soon as possible. During this holiday season, it is cruel to put millions of unemployed Americans in the position of wondering how they are going to survive come January 1 of next year. Let us renew these benefits for another year. Let us spend the next year doing everything we can to rebuild our economy, create jobs, and provide employment to everyone who wants to work in this great Nation. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Subcommittee on Children and Families of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in open session on Tuesday, December 13, 2011, at 10:15 a.m. in SD-106 to conduct a hearing entitled ``Breaking the Silence on Child Abuse: Protection, Prevention, Intervention, and Deterrence.'' For further information regarding this hearing, please contact the subcommittee staff on (202) 224-9243.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as a Senator, I have no greater responsibility than to work to ensure the security of the United States, and I believe the military should have all the tools they need to keep our Nation safe. I support the vast majority of the Defense authorization bill. However, because I believe we can protect our national security without infringing on critical constitutional values, I could not support this bill. The bill fails to clarify that under no circumstance can an American citizen be detained indefinitely without trial. And it mandates for the first time that suspects arrested in the United States will be detained by the military rather than domestic and civilian law enforcement, who since 9/11 have successfully convicted in civilian courts over 400 terrorists. Finally, the bill would make it more difficult to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, for which I have long fought because the detention facility is a stain on our honor and a recruiting tool for terrorists around the world. Not only do these provisions violate the core values upon which our freedom rests, but they won't make us safer. The Pentagon, CIA Director Petraeus, Intelligence Director Clapper, and FBI Director Mueller all said these provisions will needlessly hurt, rather than help, our national security.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to a much respected and beloved leader in America's disability community, the late Dr. Susan Daniels. Dr. Daniels acquired her disability at a very young age. Though she spent much of her early years in rehabilitation institutes and hospitals, her parents advocated for her full inclusion in school and in the life of her local community. As a consequence, Susan attended regular elementary and secondary schools. She went on to graduate summa cum laude from Marquette University, and to earn her master's degree at Mississippi State University and her Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina. And I would note that she achieved these things before the days of accessible campuses. While still in her twenties, Dr. Daniels served as chair of the Department of Rehabilitation Counseling at Louisiana State University Medical Center. There, she developed an innovative program to train individuals to work directly in community-based settings with people with developmental disabilities. This program became a core element in Louisiana's efforts to deinstitutionalize people with disabilities. Throughout her adult life, Dr. Daniels was a passionate advocate for people with disabilities. She served as Associate Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration in the U.S. Department of Education, and as Associate Commissioner of the Administration on Developmental Disabilities, ADD, in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. While at ADD, she developed the Home of Your Own Program to assist people with developmental disabilities in their quest to become homeowners in their communities. It is one of Dr. Daniels' living legacies that this Home of Your Own Program is now operating in 27 States. Perhaps Dr. Daniels' greatest accomplishment was her leadership in passing the Ticket to Work and Work Incentive Improvement Act of 1999. Appointed by President Clinton to serve as Deputy Commissioner for Disability and Income Security Programs at the Social Security Administration, she worked tirelessly to lay the groundwork for this legislation. The Ticket to Work Act created employment incentives and healthcare provisions for workers with disabilities, and removed many of the systemic barriers that often required citizens with disabilities to make a stark choice between working or retaining their health coverage. Two of the most important provisions of this legislation are the authorization for a State Medicaid buy-in program to allow individuals to maintain health coverage after returning to work, and a continuation of Medicare coverage for individuals who are working. Dr. Daniels was also very active in the fight for disability rights internationally. She addressed many conferences and research forums in Africa, Europe, and Asia. And she advised governments on the best ways to set up social insurance programs for individuals with disabilities. She served as president of the U.S. International Council on Rehabilitation, and was Rehabilitation International's deputy vice president. In 1998, she played a lead role in convening the International Women with Disabilities Leadership Forum. Dr. Daniels was the recipient of many awards for her work, including the prestigious Henry B. Betts Award, which honors individuals who have made transformative differences in the lives of people with disabilities. Dr. Daniels played leadership roles in a wide range of national and international organizations, but she also worked for change at the individual level, mentoring and sponsoring countless young men and women with disabilities both in the U.S. and abroad. Susan's husband, John Watson, and many other family members, friends, and colleagues will gather for a memorial service in her honor at the National Press Club here in Washington on December 4. I will be with them in spirit as they celebrate a determined advocate and a truly bright light, a woman who was and is an inspiration to people with disabilities around the world.

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 Thursday, December 8, 2011, at 9:45 a.m. in SD-106 to conduct a hearing entitled ``Tales from the Unemployment Line: Barriers Facing the Long- Term Unemployed.'' For further information regarding this hearing, please contact the committee staff on (202) 224-5441. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor this evening to congratulate the president of the International Association of Machinists union, Tom Buffenbarger, and Boeing's CEO, Jim McNerney, on their agreement today to extend their current contract for 4 years. This is a good deal. It reflects a strong and commendable commitment by Boeing to continue having their top-quality products made by top- quality workers. It provides real job security and fair treatment for the company's valued employees. It will also resolve the current labor dispute between the company and the union that is pending before the National Labor Relations Board. This settlement is a step forward for a great company--Boeing--a step forward for a great union--the machinists union--and a step forward for our great Nation. Again, I commend the CEO of Boeing, Mr. Jim McNerney, and the president of the machinists union, Tom Buffenbarger, for working out this agreement. This agreement is also a compelling demonstration of the fact that the NLRB--the National Labor Relations Board--process works for all concerned. When an alleged unlawful activity happens, a charge is filed with the NLRB. That is what is supposed to happen. While the NLRB's process was playing out, the parties were able to sit down, negotiate, and strike a deal, which they announced today. As a matter of fact, that is what happens to most unfair labor practice charges filed at the NLRB. It is all a part of the process at that independent agency. Just as in our court system, cases settle to the benefit of both parties. That is what happened here. It also settled to the benefit of our Nation. What should not have happened was the unprecedented level of political and congressional interference in this case. It wasn't just that Republican elected officials attempted to try this case in the press, they went far beyond that. House Republicans attempted to eliminate the board's funding entirely because of this case. Senate Republicans have blocked the nominees for the board and the General Counsel of the NLRB. House Republicans tried to subpoena the prosecutor's case file so they could obtain documents that the company had been unable to obtain in the litigation. A Member of this body called the NLRB Acting General Counsel, Mr. Lafe Solomon--an independent prosecutor and a 30-year career veteran of the agency, not a political appointee--a Member of this body called him and threatened to come after Mr. Solomon ``guns ablazing'' if he brought charges against Boeing. I am informed that the House Oversight Committee actually threatened to try to revoke the bar licenses--the bar licenses--of individual career attorneys at the National Labor Relations Board because of this case. I have never, in all my years in public office, seen such a brazen and inappropriate interference with the business of an independent agency, and I hope to never see it again. The time and attention that House Republicans have devoted to their attack campaign against the National Labor Relations Board is nothing short of astonishing. What is even more absurd and shameless is the fact that they claim this attack campaign was intended to save jobs. What saved jobs was the negotiations between the great company, Boeing, and the great union, the machinists union. That is what saved the jobs. I am mystified by the suggestion by some Republicans that gutting the NLRB would somehow revive our economy. In survey after survey, business leaders agree about what is hurting the economy. It is not government. It is not regulation. It is not the NLRB. It is the lack of consumer demand. Workers don't have enough money to buy things, and the economy won't pick up until they do. Weakening workers' rights and taking away their ability to speak up for fair treatment will only make the problem worse. Attacking American workers and the agency that protects them is a poor substitute for a real job-creation strategy. Americans know that the National Labor Relations Board is not remotely responsible for our country's economic woes. Incapacitating this agency will not put food on people's tables, help them keep their homes, find jobs, or send their kids to college. It will, however, send a strong message to those few--few--unscrupulous employers who want to take advantage of this bad economy to mistreat hard-working people. Fortunately, that is not the case with Boeing. Without the NLRB, there would be no watchdog, and it would be open season on workers' rights. At a time when decent jobs, good wages, and fair treatment are getting harder and harder to find, this would be a step in the wrong direction for our country. The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency charged with an important mission. In fulfilling that mission, the dedicated professionals at the board are doing their jobs as the law intended. Now it is time for the Republicans in the House and the Senate to do the same. Instead of continuing to pursue this pointless and distracting partisan crusade to dismantle and do away with the National Labor Relations Board, it is time to put this episode behind us. It is time to recognize the NLRB is doing its job, that companies and unions will sit down and work things out and settle things out without the Senate and the House and Governors--and Governors--of other States trying to interfere and make it a political football. Again, I congratulate the Boeing Company and the International Association of Machinists in doing what is best for America. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Are we in morning business?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about a bipartisan bill that was recently passed out of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, the HELP Committee, which I chair and of which Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming is the ranking member. This bipartisan bill reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and would replace its current iteration, which everyone knows by the title of ``No Child Left Behind.'' I want to start with a few words about the Federal role in education in this country since ESEA is a key part of that role. While it is certainly true education is primarily a State and local function, the Federal Government does play an important role, and a well-educated citizenry is clearly in the national interest. A central Federal role is to ensure all Americans, regardless of race, gender, national origin, religion, or disability, have the same equal opportunity to a good education as any other American citizen. Likewise, the Constitution expressly states that our National Government was formed specifically to ``promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.'' The general welfare, I submit, is greatly in danger when the populace is not adequately educated, and education is critical to liberty. As Frederick Douglass so eloquently noted, education ``means emancipation. It means light and liberty.'' It is no surprise that the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 expressly stated that ``schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged.'' That law encouraged new territories to establish schools. The Federal Government also encouraged States to establish public colleges and universities through the Morrill Act of 1862, which started the whole land grant college movement. Moving into the 20th century, the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, known as the GI bill, provided grants to World War II veterans to pursue a college education. In 1954, the Supreme Court struck down laws endorsing racial segregation in public schools. In 1958, Congress authorized the National Defense Education Act, the first Federal loan program to students for higher education. That was one I borrowed money from when I went to Iowa State University. That was followed by the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Federal Pell grants enacted in 1972. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed in 1965 and provided aid to States and school districts to improve education for children from low-income families. In 1975, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, which later became the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which was to assist States and districts in educating children with disabilities. In 1994, Congress passed the Goals 2000: Educate America Act and the Improving America's Schools Act. In 2001, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act, which went even further in terms of what was required of schools to receive Federal funds. I go through all this so you can see that the Federal role in education spans over 200 years, and its primary objective has always been to increase educational opportunity and to enhance educational attainment. This context is important to any discussion about the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The original goal of ESEA was to provide resources to the schools with the most disadvantaged students. This funding was needed because many States and districts use education funding formulas that provide fewer resources to high-poverty schools. Again, when anyone wants to talk about this, I say go back and read Jonathan Kozol's book entitled ``Savage Inequalities,'' written in the mid-1980s, in which he pointed out the gross inequality in our schools in America depending upon your ZIP Code--depending upon where you lived. We knew from that time that educating poor students actually requires more resources, not fewer, and title I was our attempt to create a better, more equitable education system. Title I of ESEA has never fully realized that goal, but it has served as a significant source of funding to our most impoverished schools, leading to more educational opportunity for low-income students over the last 40 years. In the early 1990s, a national consensus emerged around the idea that for the United States to remain competitive in the world economy, our education system needed significant improvements. Foremost among these was the movement for a ``standards-based reform.'' That was the idea that statewide academic standards and assessments aligned with those standards were a key lever for ensuring that all students received a good education. To that end, the 1994 reauthorization of ESEA required that States have one educational accountability system for all students, including racial and ethnic minorities, students with disabilities, and English-language learners. Along with Goals 2000, it required that States put in place standards and assessments so that we would actually know how students were doing. During the next reauthorization--that was the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001--lawmakers felt compelled to be more prescriptive with States to ensure they improved their low-performing schools and focused on closing pernicious student achievement gaps. Therefore, NCLB, as it is known, defined ``adequate yearly progress'' for schools and districts. It required districts to implement public school choice, supplemental educational services in schools, and it set aside 20 percent of their title I funds for these activities. It also included a list of rigorous interventions for schools in corrective action and an additional category of ``restructuring'' for the most chronically low- performing schools with even more severe consequences attached. What was the result of this more heavyhanded and prescriptive version of ESEA? Well, ``The Proficiency Illusion,'' a 2007 report by the Fordham Institute, found that State definitions of student proficiency varied erratically, and comparisons across the States were not valid. A new term was coined in education. It was called the hockey stick. In reaction to the 2014 proficiency deadline that schools were to meet, what happened is that States backloaded the student gains needed to reach this goal. So it kind of came in the shape of a hockey stick lying on its side. So it was at a low level, and then all of a sudden, in the last 2 or 3 years, all of these proficiency standards would have to be met. That is why so many more schools are now failing to make adequate yearly progress across the country as we approach 2014. The slope gets steeper, and it gets tougher for them to make that yearly progress. Another thing happened. Districts responded to the new restructuring category by choosing the least prescriptive--and some would say the weakest--option. In effect, districts could do as much or as little as they wanted in these severely underperforming schools. Lastly, the No Child Left Behind law drove a critical transparency and focus on the performance of student subgroups--which was good, but its prescriptiveness also led to a culture of compliance and not innovation. So they would comply, but nothing would be done to change the system. Given this history, we must now ask what the next reauthorization of ESEA should look like. Should the Federal Government come down harder on States and districts, be more prescriptive, more punitive? I strongly believe that we must maintain a robust Federal role. In looking at the most recent national assessment of educational progress--also called NAEP--scores, we see that more than 50 percent of the students who are eligible for free or reduced lunch--read that as ``poor kids,'' OK?--scored ``below basic'' on the fourth grade reading assessment, as compared to only 17 percent of students who were not eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. Fifty percent of the poor kids read ``below basic,'' compared to only 17 percent of kids who were not poor. On the eighth grade mathematics assessment, almost half--49 percent--of African-American students scored ``below basic.'' Got that? On eighth grade math, 49 percent of African-American students scored ``below basic,'' as compared to only 16 percent of White students. Madam President, we believe in equal opportunity in this country, but you cannot have equality of opportunity when you have inequality of education. Our economy, our ethics, and our commitment to equal opportunity all demand that the Federal Government continue to have a strong role in ensuring an educated citizenry. But just as the Federal role has evolved from Federal land grants to student Pell grants, we must be willing to shift to new approaches when the old ones aren't working. I do not believe No Child Left Behind is the pinnacle of Federal education laws. I believe we can and must do better. Our bipartisan bill follows a different course, one of a more strategic partnership-- partnership--with States and districts within Federal guidelines or Federal parameters. In making this move, it is important to note that States have stepped up to the standards and accountability plate in recent years. In 2009, the Common Core State Standards Initiative was launched, a State-led effort to develop high-quality standards that are common across State lines. Thus far, 46 States and the District of Columbia have adopted the English language arts standards, and 45 States have adopted the math standards. In 2011, the Council of Chief State School Officers released its accountability principles for next-generation accountability systems, now endorsed by 45 States. These principles include setting performance goals for all schools and districts aligned to college- and career- ready standards; measuring student outcomes based on status and growth; differentiating between schools and districts and providing supports and interventions; and targeting the lowest performing schools for significant interventions. States committed through these principles to doing deeper diagnostic reviews as appropriate--looking at more than just student test scores and high school graduation rates--to better link accountability determinations to meaningful supports and interventions. This is all being done by the States. So these commitments by the States have led me to believe we may be entering an era in which the Federal Government can work in partnership with States to improve our Nation's schools, while continuing to provide a backstop to avoid returning to old ways of discrimination and exclusions. I think that is what the bipartisan bill passed by the HELP Committee last month does. This bill, in many ways, resembles the ESEA blueprint released by Secretary Duncan almost 2 years ago. Our bill gets rid of AYP--the annual yearly progress--but it sets Federal parameters for State- designed accountability systems, which they are already doing. They are doing that on their own. These systems must cover all students, including students with disabilities and English-language learners; they must continue to measure and report on the performance of all schools; they must expect continuous improvement for all schools and subgroups of students; and they must provide for interventions in low- performing schools or schools with low-achieving student subgroups. State accountability plans are also subject to peer review and approval by the Secretary of Education--an important safeguard on the quality and integrity of these systems. In short, we do not want to have a race-to-the-bottom type of system where States race to the bottom to see who has to do the least to meet these quality improvements. The HELP Committee's bill also sets the high bar of having students graduate from high school college- and career-ready. It also tightens the Federal focus on turning around persistently low-achieving schools--the bottom 5 percent--and our Nation's dropout factories-- those high schools that graduate less than 60 percent of their students--less than 60 percent of their students. We focus on those schools with significant student achievement gaps. What I mean by that is sometimes you might have very good schools by all appearances--all the test scores are great, they graduate a lot of students-- but there are subgroups there--usually students of color, English- language learners, students with disabilities--who aren't receiving the proper type of education. But because the rest of the school looks so good, they are sort of not seen. They are sort of invisible. These are the achievement-gap schools which we have focused on and which, I might add, States have already said they are going to focus on too. Our bill takes the significant step of closing the comparability loophole so that funds provided through title I ESEA will finally serve as additional dollars--not replacement but additional dollars--for our neediest students. And title I schools will get their fair share of Federal resources. It also provides districts with more flexibility in how States and districts spend their Federal funds while ensuring that the resources designated to serve our most disadvantaged students get to those students. The bill incentivizes the development of rigorous and fair teacher and principal evaluation systems. We don't mandate it, but we do incentivize teacher and principal evaluation systems, and it provides these critical school staff with the support they need to continually improve teaching and learning. The bill also leverages opportunities for more children to access high-quality early learning programs and adds new protections for some of our most vulnerable children--homeless kids and students in foster care--so they can be better served by schools. Our bill strategically consolidates programs and focuses grant funds on a smaller number of programs to allow for greater flexibility. It invests in effective programs to train and support principals and teachers for high-need schools. It fosters innovation through new programs such as Race to the Top, Investing in Innovation, and Promise Neighborhoods. So as I have said many times over the past few years, I believe this is a good bill. I am proud of our efforts. The bill is the result of many months of bipartisan negotiation and, as such it is a carefully crafted compromise. It does not contain everything I want, nor does it contain everything Senator Enzi wanted. I said the other day: This is not my bill and this is not Senator Enzi's bill, but it is our bill-- and I don't mean just the two of us, but I mean our committee bill. It is, as currently written, a bill that moves us forward beyond the punitive nature of No Child Left Behind. Last, I want to make clear that as this process moves forward, I believe it is crucial that we maintain the integrity and balance of this bipartisan compromise. We owe it to our kids and our Nation to produce a strong bill that will actually move the needle in improving our educational system. That will be the barometer that will guide me as this process moves forward. To that end, I would note that, historically, education policy has been done in a bipartisan fashion, and I believe the House must also maintain that approach. Without a bipartisan bill coming out of the House, I believe it would be difficult to find a path forward that will draw the support we need from both sides of the aisle to be able to send a final bill to the President that he can sign. Here in the Senate we have demonstrated it is possible to reach bipartisan consensus on ESEA. We all need to work together in a bipartisan way to replace No Child Left Behind with this new and better law. With the reauthorization of ESEA, we are on the brink of change, and change many times is difficult. But we must work together to move from a culture of minimal compliance with Federal requirements to one of shared innovation, shared responsibility, and success for students. I look forward to working toward this new partnership and to the next chapter of an effective Federal role in promoting educational excellence and equity. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor my friends Gerry and Lilo Leeds for their passionate commitment to improving the Nation's education system and helping all students reach their maximum potential. Gerard and Lilo Leeds arrived in the United States after fleeing Germany in 1939 with virtually no money. But armed with their education, they eventually became successful entrepreneurs. In time, they built and then sold a sizable media corporation and have devoted their lives to ensuring that all students have access to an excellent education. Initially, the Leeds founded the nonpartisan Institute for Student Achievement an organization that works in low-income middle and high schools to improve student achievement for at-risk youth. They were major supporters of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, a coalition of concerned parents and education advocates working to reform New York State's school finance system. The Leeds also established the nonpartisan Caroline and Sigmund Schott Foundation an organization that works on early childhood education and care, gender equity, and education financing issues. However, Gerry and Lilo Leeds did not stop there. After seeing the Institute for Student Achievement boost graduation rates in low- performing schools up as high as 90 percent, they founded the nonpartisan Alliance for Excellent Education in 2001 to singularly focus on advancing public policy to decrease dropout rates and prepare all students to succeed at the postsecondary level. The Alliance for Excellent Education has advocated on behalf of secondary school youth now for over 10 years thanks to the leadership and support of the Leeds family. Mr. and Mrs. Leeds have worked to improve the education of students from every background, location, and age. Lilo Leeds has made education for students in less affluent communities, universal early education, and the advancement of women the focus of her work. She is also the co- founder of the Great Neck/Manhasset Community Child Care partnership. Gerry Leeds is the co-founder of the National Academy for Excellent Teacher, NAfET at Teachers College, Columbia University. Together, they are recipients of humanitarian awards from the Urban League, NAACP, New York State United Teachers Association, and the American Jewish Committee. They were listed by Newsday in the top 100 people who have shaped the century, an amazing feat especially considering the obstacles they both had to overcome. This couple has provided countless opportunities for children to succeed. I believe they have been so committed to this cause in part because they see themselves in children who have to overcome tremendous obstacles to thrive. Fundamentally, the Leeds feel a responsibility to act to improve the world around them; and their actions have made a difference for the Nation's students. Mr. President, I would like to thank Gerry and Lilo for their contributions and dedication to young people all across this country.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, among the most hopeful occurrences in rural America is when someone is able to get started in farming or ranching and go on to build a successful operation. Typically, the beginning farmer or rancher is continuing an established family farm or ranch, although increasingly he or she is taking on the challenge of starting and growing an entirely new operation. Because farming and ranching families are so vital to rural communities and our Nation as a whole, there has been a great deal of concern for decades as America's agricultural producers have grown older and retired, as farm numbers fell, and as men and women who had a great desire to become the next generation of farmers and ranchers were unable to find the opportunities and resources to do so. Across America, we are fortunate to have many families and individuals who possess the ability, motivation, and dedication to start or continue a farm or ranch and build a rewarding life in agriculture. Our Nation needs more beginning farmers and ranchers across all types of operations--including commercial-scale crop and animal agriculture systems, organic agriculture, growing for local food systems and farmers markets, and even farming in urban and suburban areas. We need more beginning farmers and ranchers to secure critical supplies of food, fuel, and fiber for the future. We need them as stewards to care for and conserve our soil, water, and other natural resources. We need more new farming and ranching families as contributing members of healthy and vibrant local communities. Aspiring and beginning farmers and ranchers confront tremendous challenges, yet there are some hopeful signs. According to the Census of Agriculture, the number of farms in the United States increased four percent between 2002 and 2007. The new farms tended to be smaller, have lower sales, and rely more on off-farm income sources. New farmers are also more diverse, with significant increases between 2002 and 2007 in the number of farm operators who are women, Hispanic, American Indian, African-American, and Asian-American. We know from experience that carefully designed programs can very effectively help beginning farmers and ranchers apply their talents and efforts, assemble the necessary resources, capitalize upon opportunities, and succeed. I am proud that in the two farm bills, in 2002 and 2008, that we enacted while I was chairman of the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, we adopted a number of initiatives to strengthen and improve programs at the Department of Agriculture that assist beginning farmers and ranchers. The legislation I am introducing today, joined by a number of my colleagues, is crafted to extend, improve, and strengthen beginning farmer and rancher programs and initiatives that we adopted in the most recent two farm bills and in earlier farm bills and other legislation. The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act of 2011 will build upon the successful record of the earlier legislation and its implementation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in cooperation with a variety of public and private institutions and organizations. Let me emphasize that the beginning farmer and rancher initiatives in the legislation we are introducing today, and the programs now being carried out by USDA, are not designed or intended to guarantee the success of any beginning farmer or rancher or to give anyone something for nothing. All they do is to offer a helping hand, a better opportunity, to women and men who make the effort and apply themselves, who are willing to learn and to do the necessary work to achieve their goals and succeed in farming and ranching. A key feature of the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act of 2011 is to extend and strengthen the beginning farmer and rancher development program, which we enacted in 2008. In this program, USDA provides competitively-awarded grants to qualified organizations that deliver training and education for beginning farmers and ranchers. This new legislation makes it a new priority for USDA to issue grants to support agricultural rehabilitation and vocational training for military veterans and to deliver training and education to help veterans who are beginning farmers and ranchers. The bill also would extend and increase mandatory funding for this development program to $25 million in each of fiscal years 2013 through 2017. This legislation also strengthens in several ways the assistance USDA provides to enable beginning farmers and ranchers to assemble the financial resources they need to start and build a successful operation. It creates a microloan program in which young beginning farmers and ranchers who qualify could borrow up to $35,000 for operating expenses at reduced interest rates and with simplified paperwork. Also included in this bill is mandatory funding at $5 million a year to carry out the individual development accounts pilot program that was enacted in the 2008 farm bill. Grants under this pilot program would support at least 15 State individual development account initiatives to help beginning farmers and ranchers build savings that can then be invested in their agricultural operations. Several other provisions of the bill update and improve the existing USDA programs to help beginning farmers and ranchers obtain loans for operating expenses, land purchases, and applying conservation practices. To encourage and assist beginning farmers and ranchers in maintaining and adopting sound conservation practices in their operations, the bill extends and strengthens several initiatives enacted in previous farm bills. For example, the legislation expands the options and financial incentives for maintaining conservation on land that comes out of the Conservation Reserve Program, CRP, contracts and is leased or sold to beginning farmers or ranchers. Other provisions increase the share of funds and enrollment dedicated to beginning farmers and ranchers in the Conservation Stewardship Program, CSP, and Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, strengthen help to beginning farmers and ranchers through the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program, promote their use of whole-farm conservation planning, and boost help to them through conservation loans and cost-share payments. Other features of the bill are designed to strengthen revenue insurance available to beginning farmers and ranchers through USDA's Risk Management Agency, including increased funding to help beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers better understand and utilize insurance programs and risk management systems. In order to help beginning farmers and ranchers build markets and increase income through adding value to their commodities, the bill enhances opportunities for beginning farmers and ranchers to receive USDA value- added producer grants and provides new, increased mandatory funding for such grants. To strengthen USDA's attention to helping beginning farmers and ranchers, the legislation creates coordinators in key USDA agency offices in each State. It also creates a special USDA veterans agricultural liaison position to focus upon helping veterans understand and benefit from USDA programs, especially those for beginning farmers and ranchers. In conclusion, I am proud of the initiatives we have previously enacted to help beginning farmers and ranchers create and pursue opportunities and realize their goals and dreams. By building on the success of the existing programs, this legislation will lend more help to beginning farmers and ranchers and in doing so strengthen American agriculture, our rural communities, and our nation as a whole. I am grateful to the cosponsors of this bill and urge all of my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today it gives me great pleasure to introduce the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act Reauthorization of 2011--also known as the PAHPA Reauthorization of 2011--with a bipartisan group of Senators that includes Senators Burr, Casey, Enzi, Mikulski, Alexander, Hagan, Collins, Lieberman, and Roberts. This reauthorization builds on a record of bipartisan cooperation to strengthen our ability to respond to and prepare for medical and public health emergencies over the past decade. Based on lessons learned since the original PAHPA legislation was signed into law in 2006, this reauthorization continues to support the progress made by the Federal Government and its State and local partners to protect its citizens during public health and medical emergencies. It also proposes a number of targeted changes that will improve our ability to address a variety of threats to the public health of our Nation. Such threats are diverse in origin and include exposure to chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear agents. Sometimes these threats occur naturally--the 2009 H1N1 pandemic influenza, for example--or they can be the result of malicious intent--such as the deliberate release of anthrax in 2001. A recent and very challenging example is the radiation leak that occurred at the nuclear plant damaged by Japan's massive earthquake. It is not just known threats that place the health and well-being of Americans at risk; there are just as many emerging or unknown threats against which protection is critical. Because the impact of these threats could be catastrophic, it is imperative that we continue to strengthen our Nation's ability to adequately prepare for a public health emergency. Building our Nation's response capacity requires close collaboration among Federal, State and local governments; hospitals and health care providers; businesses; schools; indeed, all Americans. I have long taken the Federal Government's role in being prepared for a public health emergency public health preparedness as it is calledvery seriously. We have made tremendous progress in preparedness during the last decade, but this reauthorization provides additional flexibility to State and local governments to more efficiently use Federal resources in preparing for public health emergencies. For example, this bill reauthorizes the Public Health Emergency Preparedness Cooperative Grant Program, which provides critical resources to State and local public health agencies, and streamlines requirements making it easier for them to meet program requirements and target resources. Our ability to be prepared for a public health emergency also depends on the advanced development and procurement of medical countermeasures. These are the vaccines, therapies, and diagnostics needed to prevent or respond to a bioterrorism event or other public health emergency. In an effort to ensure that we have the appropriate medical countermeasures, we need to continue to support innovative research into promising new products and ensure that products are readily available during a time of emergency. We also need to address the scientific challenges of identifying safe and effective medical countermeasures when human trials are not available or ethical. This bill addresses a number of these concerns and provides greater certainty for biotech companies that operate in this space and continues to build on partnerships between the private sector and the Federal Government to ensure that we have the appropriate medical countermeasures to prepare for or respond to a public health emergency. Underlying all of our preparedness activities is the issue of how we ensure that our most vulnerable citizens will be protected should disaster strike. We know that many populations--including individuals with disabilities, seniors, and children--may have unique needs that we have the responsibility to address during a public health emergency. In the past, when faced with catastrophic events, we have too often seen such needs go unmet. Now we must use lessons learned to ensure more efficient, effective, and equitable responses in the future. Something that I am especially proud of is that the PAHPA Reauthorization of 2011 requires that these individuals are an integrated part of our preparedness efforts. This means that we continue to address the unique needs of at-risk populations--such providing information in a way that it is understandable to all Americans, including those with cognitive limitations--and plan for these unique needs when it comes to drafting preparedness plans and conducting preparedness drills and exercises. This bill truly focuses on addressing the need of our most vulnerable citizens by considering them as critical part of our overall preparedness planning--not as an afterthought. This bill represents a true bipartisan effort and had the support of a number of important stakeholders. For example, we have already received the endorsements of the Alliance for Biosecurity, American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Dental Association. In the coming days and weeks, we expect many more endorsements. Because the bill is so critical to our ability to prepare for and respond to public health and medical emergencies, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, among the most hopeful occurrences in rural America is when someone is able to get started in farming or ranching and go on to build a successful operation. Typically, the beginning farmer or rancher is continuing an established family farm or ranch, although increasingly he or she is taking on the challenge of starting and growing an entirely new operation. Because farming and ranching families are so vital to rural communities and our Nation as a whole, there has been a great deal of concern for decades as America's agricultural producers have grown older and retired, as farm numbers fell, and as men and women who had a great desire to become the next generation of farmers and ranchers were unable to find the opportunities and resources to do so. Across America, we are fortunate to have many families and individuals who possess the ability, motivation, and dedication to start or continue a farm or ranch and build a rewarding life in agriculture. Our Nation needs more beginning farmers and ranchers across all types of operations--including commercial-scale crop and animal agriculture systems, organic agriculture, growing for local food systems and farmers markets, and even farming in urban and suburban areas. We need more beginning farmers and ranchers to secure critical supplies of food, fuel, and fiber for the future. We need them as stewards to care for and conserve our soil, water, and other natural resources. We need more new farming and ranching families as contributing members of healthy and vibrant local communities. Aspiring and beginning farmers and ranchers confront tremendous challenges, yet there are some hopeful signs. According to the Census of Agriculture, the number of farms in the United States increased four percent between 2002 and 2007. The new farms tended to be smaller, have lower sales, and rely more on off-farm income sources. New farmers are also more diverse, with significant increases between 2002 and 2007 in the number of farm operators who are women, Hispanic, American Indian, African-American, and Asian-American. We know from experience that carefully designed programs can very effectively help beginning farmers and ranchers apply their talents and efforts, assemble the necessary resources, capitalize upon opportunities, and succeed. I am proud that in the two farm bills, in 2002 and 2008, that we enacted while I was chairman of the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, we adopted a number of initiatives to strengthen and improve programs at the Department of Agriculture that assist beginning farmers and ranchers. The legislation I am introducing today, joined by a number of my colleagues, is crafted to extend, improve, and strengthen beginning farmer and rancher programs and initiatives that we adopted in the most recent two farm bills and in earlier farm bills and other legislation. The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act of 2011 will build upon the successful record of the earlier legislation and its implementation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in cooperation with a variety of public and private institutions and organizations. Let me emphasize that the beginning farmer and rancher initiatives in the legislation we are introducing today, and the programs now being carried out by USDA, are not designed or intended to guarantee the success of any beginning farmer or rancher or to give anyone something for nothing. All they do is to offer a helping hand, a better opportunity, to women and men who make the effort and apply themselves, who are willing to learn and to do the necessary work to achieve their goals and succeed in farming and ranching. A key feature of the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act of 2011 is to extend and strengthen the beginning farmer and rancher development program, which we enacted in 2008. In this program, USDA provides competitively-awarded grants to qualified organizations that deliver training and education for beginning farmers and ranchers. This new legislation makes it a new priority for USDA to issue grants to support agricultural rehabilitation and vocational training for military veterans and to deliver training and education to help veterans who are beginning farmers and ranchers. The bill also would extend and increase mandatory funding for this development program to $25 million in each of fiscal years 2013 through 2017. This legislation also strengthens in several ways the assistance USDA provides to enable beginning farmers and ranchers to assemble the financial resources they need to start and build a successful operation. It creates a microloan program in which young beginning farmers and ranchers who qualify could borrow up to $35,000 for operating expenses at reduced interest rates and with simplified paperwork. Also included in this bill is mandatory funding at $5 million a year to carry out the individual development accounts pilot program that was enacted in the 2008 farm bill. Grants under this pilot program would support at least 15 State individual development account initiatives to help beginning farmers and ranchers build savings that can then be invested in their agricultural operations. Several other provisions of the bill update and improve the existing USDA programs to help beginning farmers and ranchers obtain loans for operating expenses, land purchases, and applying conservation practices. To encourage and assist beginning farmers and ranchers in maintaining and adopting sound conservation practices in their operations, the bill extends and strengthens several initiatives enacted in previous farm bills. For example, the legislation expands the options and financial incentives for maintaining conservation on land that comes out of the Conservation Reserve Program, CRP, contracts and is leased or sold to beginning farmers or ranchers. Other provisions increase the share of funds and enrollment dedicated to beginning farmers and ranchers in the Conservation Stewardship Program, CSP, and Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, strengthen help to beginning farmers and ranchers through the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program, promote their use of whole-farm conservation planning, and boost help to them through conservation loans and cost-share payments. Other features of the bill are designed to strengthen revenue insurance available to beginning farmers and ranchers through USDA's Risk Management Agency, including increased funding to help beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers better understand and utilize insurance programs and risk management systems. In order to help beginning farmers and ranchers build markets and increase income through adding value to their commodities, the bill enhances opportunities for beginning farmers and ranchers to receive USDA value- added producer grants and provides new, increased mandatory funding for such grants. To strengthen USDA's attention to helping beginning farmers and ranchers, the legislation creates coordinators in key USDA agency offices in each State. It also creates a special USDA veterans agricultural liaison position to focus upon helping veterans understand and benefit from USDA programs, especially those for beginning farmers and ranchers. In conclusion, I am proud of the initiatives we have previously enacted to help beginning farmers and ranchers create and pursue opportunities and realize their goals and dreams. By building on the success of the existing programs, this legislation will lend more help to beginning farmers and ranchers and in doing so strengthen American agriculture, our rural communities, and our nation as a whole. I am grateful to the cosponsors of this bill and urge all of my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today it gives me great pleasure to introduce the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act Reauthorization of 2011--also known as the PAHPA Reauthorization of 2011--with a bipartisan group of Senators that includes Senators Burr, Casey, Enzi, Mikulski, Alexander, Hagan, Collins, Lieberman, and Roberts. This reauthorization builds on a record of bipartisan cooperation to strengthen our ability to respond to and prepare for medical and public health emergencies over the past decade. Based on lessons learned since the original PAHPA legislation was signed into law in 2006, this reauthorization continues to support the progress made by the Federal Government and its State and local partners to protect its citizens during public health and medical emergencies. It also proposes a number of targeted changes that will improve our ability to address a variety of threats to the public health of our Nation. Such threats are diverse in origin and include exposure to chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear agents. Sometimes these threats occur naturally--the 2009 H1N1 pandemic influenza, for example--or they can be the result of malicious intent--such as the deliberate release of anthrax in 2001. A recent and very challenging example is the radiation leak that occurred at the nuclear plant damaged by Japan's massive earthquake. It is not just known threats that place the health and well-being of Americans at risk; there are just as many emerging or unknown threats against which protection is critical. Because the impact of these threats could be catastrophic, it is imperative that we continue to strengthen our Nation's ability to adequately prepare for a public health emergency. Building our Nation's response capacity requires close collaboration among Federal, State and local governments; hospitals and health care providers; businesses; schools; indeed, all Americans. I have long taken the Federal Government's role in being prepared for a public health emergency public health preparedness as it is calledvery seriously. We have made tremendous progress in preparedness during the last decade, but this reauthorization provides additional flexibility to State and local governments to more efficiently use Federal resources in preparing for public health emergencies. For example, this bill reauthorizes the Public Health Emergency Preparedness Cooperative Grant Program, which provides critical resources to State and local public health agencies, and streamlines requirements making it easier for them to meet program requirements and target resources. Our ability to be prepared for a public health emergency also depends on the advanced development and procurement of medical countermeasures. These are the vaccines, therapies, and diagnostics needed to prevent or respond to a bioterrorism event or other public health emergency. In an effort to ensure that we have the appropriate medical countermeasures, we need to continue to support innovative research into promising new products and ensure that products are readily available during a time of emergency. We also need to address the scientific challenges of identifying safe and effective medical countermeasures when human trials are not available or ethical. This bill addresses a number of these concerns and provides greater certainty for biotech companies that operate in this space and continues to build on partnerships between the private sector and the Federal Government to ensure that we have the appropriate medical countermeasures to prepare for or respond to a public health emergency. Underlying all of our preparedness activities is the issue of how we ensure that our most vulnerable citizens will be protected should disaster strike. We know that many populations--including individuals with disabilities, seniors, and children--may have unique needs that we have the responsibility to address during a public health emergency. In the past, when faced with catastrophic events, we have too often seen such needs go unmet. Now we must use lessons learned to ensure more efficient, effective, and equitable responses in the future. Something that I am especially proud of is that the PAHPA Reauthorization of 2011 requires that these individuals are an integrated part of our preparedness efforts. This means that we continue to address the unique needs of at-risk populations--such providing information in a way that it is understandable to all Americans, including those with cognitive limitations--and plan for these unique needs when it comes to drafting preparedness plans and conducting preparedness drills and exercises. This bill truly focuses on addressing the need of our most vulnerable citizens by considering them as critical part of our overall preparedness planning--not as an afterthought. This bill represents a true bipartisan effort and had the support of a number of important stakeholders. For example, we have already received the endorsements of the Alliance for Biosecurity, American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Dental Association. In the coming days and weeks, we expect many more endorsements. Because the bill is so critical to our ability to prepare for and respond to public health and medical emergencies, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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 Thursday, November 17, 2011, at 10 a.m. in SD-430 to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Americans with Disabilities Act and Accessible Transportation: Challenges and Opportunities.'' For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Andrew Imparato of the committee staff on (202) 228-3453.

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 Tuesday, November 15, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. in SD-430 to conduct a hearing entitled ``Medical Devices: Protecting Patients and Promoting Innovation.'' For further information regarding this hearing, please contact the committee staff on (202) 224-7675.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I yield back all time on our side.

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, later this week--I assume sometime tomorrow--the Senate is expected to vote on the Rebuild America Jobs Act. This is a practical, commonsense piece of legislation that does two urgent and important things: It will help to modernize America's crumbling infrastructure, and it will help to put Americans back to work and get our economy going again. Not surprisingly, this bill enjoys overwhelming popular support among the American people. Every day, Americans see the infrastructure crisis with their own eyes. They see interstate highways increasingly overwhelmed--potholes everywhere. They see bridges and overpasses that are structurally unsound and in danger of collapse. Need I mention the gridlock in some of our major cities because of inadequate roadways and access points for automobiles? China and Brazil are building world- class seaports, while ours are left over from early in the last century. We know we need to make major Federal investments in modernizing America's infrastructure, so why not do it now, at a time when our Nation is suffering from the most protracted period of joblessness since the Great Depression. The construction sector is the hardest hit part of our economy. We can put those people back to work renewing our infrastructure and, again, as I said, boosting our economy. Why aren't we doing this? The answer is, Republicans have made it clear they intend to block this legislation tomorrow, just as they have blocked so many other bills designed to put Americans back to work and get the economy moving again. They filibustered and killed the American Jobs Act. Two weeks ago, they filibustered and killed the Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act. It seems to me if the word ``no'' were removed from the English language, our Republican friends would be rendered speechless. Let me state the obvious. The word ``no'' will not put 28 million Americans back to work. The word ``no'' will not allow us to strike a balanced agreement to bring deficits under control. The word ``no'' will not allow us to undertake a robust program to modernize our transportation system. The job-creating investments in this bill are fully paid for with a tiny fractional tax on the richest of the rich in the United States. These wealthy Americans would pay a 0.7-percent surtax on incomes in excess of $1 million a year. Let me repeat that. This infrastructure jobs bill we will be voting on tomorrow, which the Republicans have indicated they are going to filibuster and kill, is fully paid for with a 0.7-percent surtax on incomes in excess of $1 million a year. If those making more than $1 million a year even noticed such a negligible tax, I would be astonished. Still, the Republicans say no. Let's put this in context. Just last week, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that over the last three decades the aftertax income of millionaires and billionaires increased by 275 percent. That is correct. The Congressional Budget Office said over the last three decades the aftertax income of millionaires and billionaires increased 275 percent. During the same 30 years--the same three decades--the average take-home pay of middle-class workers in America actually declined. So is it any wonder the middle class is upset when they see what has happened to them over the last 30 years--flat, slightly declined in terms of their living standards and their income-- while the superrich increased their take-home by 275 percent. The top 1 percent of income earners in America now take home more than half of all the money earned each year in America. Again, that needs repeating. The top 1 percent of income earners in America take home over half of all the money earned in America every year. Mind- boggling, isn't it? Mind-boggling. Yet Republicans adamantly oppose any tax increase on these people--even 0.7 percent--which would go toward the infrastructure of America and putting people back to work. Certainly, no one questions the solicitude of Republicans toward the rich and the superrich. I just wish they would show even a fraction of that concern on behalf of the besieged middle class in this country. Republicans on this so-called supercommittee are willing to block all progress in order to prevent any tax increase at all on the rich, but they are demanding--demanding--deep cuts to Social Security, Medicare, student loans, and other Federal programs that undergird the middle class in the United States. Meanwhile, Republicans in the Senate continue to block the bills we have proposed in order to put people back to work and get the economy moving again. Some pundits have speculated that, for political reasons, Republicans are deliberately blocking any legislation that would boost the economy or create jobs because that would make President Obama maybe look good. These pundits point out the Senate's minority leader has been explicit in stating that his No. 1 priority is to prevent the reelection of President Obama. So many of the pundits say that, to the extent Republicans can prevent us from doing anything--keep this place in gridlock, keep us from having a jobs program--and the economy gets worse, then they will say to the American people: See, President Obama is not doing his job. The economy is getting worse. I just heard my colleague from Iowa. In his speech, he was at least honest enough to say President Obama had inherited a bad economy. That is true. He admitted that. My friend from Iowa, my colleague, went on to say, however, that President Obama has made it worse; that he hasn't improved anything over the last 2\1/2\ years; that his plan hasn't worked. I daresay it is the Republicans who have been blocking anything we could do to put America back to work, including their voting no tomorrow, which I understand they will, in order to prevent us from getting this infrastructure and jobs bill through. A more charitable explanation is Republican ideology is simply that government can't create jobs. This may be a sincere belief of most Republicans, but I must point out it is sincerely wrong. Across our Nation's history, an often visionary Federal Government has funded and spearheaded initiatives that have expanded private commerce, given birth to countless inventions and new industries and created tens of millions of jobs in the process. Let's take a look at history. One of the most visionary advocates of Federal investment to create jobs was, believe it or not, the father of the Republican Party--Abraham Lincoln. Despite the disruption of the Civil War, Lincoln insisted on moving the Nation forward through bold Federal investments and initiatives. For example, in 1862, he signed the Pacific Railway Act, authorizing huge Federal land grants to finance construction of the transcontinental railroad--one of the great technological feats of the 19th century. To produce the rails for this railroad, he enacted a steep tariff on foreign steel in order to get the American steel industry going. There is a story--I don't know if it is real or apocryphal--about Abraham Lincoln. He was approached by, I guess, the free traders of his time who said: If you are going to build this transcontinental railroad, it would be cheaper to import the rails from England. They have the steel mills, they know how to do it, and it would be cheaper to build them in England and ship them here. It is said Lincoln thought about this for some time and came back and said: Well, it seems to me, however, if we buy the rails from England, they have our money and we have the rails. But if we build the rails here, we have our money here and we have the rails. As I said, I don't know if that story is true, but I have heard it many times in my lifetime. Thus, he put in place a steep tariff, kept England's rails out, rebuilt our steel industry, and, as they say, the rest is history. These and other Federal initiatives during Lincoln's Presidency had a transformative impact on the U.S. economy--creating new industries and millions of new jobs. Again, Lincoln did this despite the fact the Federal Government was deeply in debt--deeply in debt--and running huge deficits to finance the Civil War. It is almost humorous to imagine how today's Republicans would have reacted to Lincoln's agenda. No doubt they would have attacked him as reckless and irresponsible. They would whine that we are broke and can't afford to invest in the future. I keep hearing this all the time: We can't afford to do this. We can't afford that. We are broke. We are broke. Doesn't anybody understand we are broke? I keep pointing out the United States is the richest country in the history of mankind--the richest country in the history of mankind. We have the highest per capita income of any nation in the world. So if we are so rich, why are we so broke? We have got to keep asking that question. I am sure the tea party contingent would have demanded that Lincoln be expelled from the party, all of which reminds us how far the modern-day Republican Party has strayed from its progressive, forward- thinking beginnings. Indeed, the present-day Republican Party would have excoriated President Reagan. I see they just put a new 9-foot statue of him out at National Airport. They should put underneath it, ``He raised taxes in 1982, 1983, and 1984.'' Yes, President Reagan raised taxes in 1982, 1983, and 1984. Dwight Eisenhower, another Republican, championed one of the greatest public works projects in our history, and that is the building of the Interstate Highway System. A 1996 study of the system concluded that: The interstate highway system is an engine that has driven 40 years of unprecedented prosperity and positioned the United States to remain the world's preeminent power into the 21st century. And, of course Franklin Roosevelt in the depths of the Depression put a lot of people to work, and they built a lot of good things. So I thought I would bring this over here. I hang this on the wall in my office. This is my father's--not my grandfather's--WPA card. For all you young people here, you can read your history. WPA stands for the Works Project Administration. It was instituted in the Depression to put people back to work building public works projects. So this is my father's WPA card because he was out of work, and he went to work on WPA. It has his name here, Patrick F. Harkin, Cumming, IA. It says here: You are asked to report, ready for work at once at a project as a laborer, $40.30 per month, 138 hours max, Warren County. Signed by my father. So my father went to work on WPA, and this is his card. I keep it as a reminder of a lot of things, but also a reminder of the good things the government can do. They gave my father a job. He was married and had five kids and the sixth one on the way--me; no work, no income. Of course, that was before Social Security or Medicare or anything else. What did they do? Did they stand around doing nothing? Years later, my father took me out to visit some of the projects he worked on, on WPA. There is a place out in Des Moines called Lake Ahquabi. It is a huge State park, it is a recreational facility, campgrounds, Boy Scouts, a big lake there, conference centers, still being used today, built by my father. Well, not by him alone, but he worked on it in the WPA, still being used today. You can go in and look at the high school built by WPA, still being used today, I might add. My father was rather proud of the things he worked on. When they built the high school, did the government do it? Was it some kind of government entity that built it? No, it was a private contractor. Who dug out the lake and built the things at Lake Ahquabi? Private contractors. The bill we are going to vote on tomorrow, the public works bill, the putting America back to work jobs bill, would put people all over America back to work on highways and bridges, and sewer and water systems and things such as that, who would be employed by the private sector, by private companies to do the work. And the work needs to be done. Many of the things my father and others in the WPA worked on in the 1930s still are being used today, although they are crumbling. Someone recently said that we are still driving on Eisenhower's highways and going to Roosevelt's schools. What is our generation going to do to rebuild that infrastructure for future generations? Well, I guess we are going to sit around here and do nothing, because the Republicans continue to filibuster and block any meaningful jobs bill getting through the Senate.

Mr. HARKIN. I would say to my friend from Arizona, less than 10 minutes, about 7 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator. Investments such as these, investments such as what Abraham Lincoln did or what Eisenhower did or Franklin Roosevelt did, investments that were led by Lyndon Baines Johnson to educate our workforce and to retrain our workforce, to make sure every child had a good education in America, all of these helped people who were unemployed, helped them to get jobs, helped them to become taxpayers, and it set the stage for economic growth in our country. To me, the most obvious and quickest way to dramatically ramp up our Federal investments in infrastructure is to pass this jobs bill. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that America faces a $2.2 trillion infrastructure backlog. Bringing the U.S. infrastructure into the 21st century would rapidly create millions of private sector jobs, especially in the hard-hit construction industry, while modernizing our arteries and veins of commerce. There could be no economic recovery without robust, forward-thinking investments to boost our competitiveness and put people back to work. This means to invest in education, innovation, the infrastructure in America. It means restoring a level playing field with fair taxation, a good ladder of opportunity to give every American the education they need to gain decent employment and achieve the American dream. Again, it is all wrapped up in the Rebuild America Jobs Act that we will be voting on here tomorrow. I wish I could say I am hopeful that we could pass it, but I understand the Republicans are going to filibuster it and we won't have the 60 votes needed. That is a shame, because we need to put people back to work and we need to rebuild our infrastructure, and we can't wait much longer to do it. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Julia Feinberg and Adam Newman of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's proceedings on the motion to proceed to S. 1769.

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 Tuesday, November 8, 2011, at 10 a.m. in SD-106 to conduct a hearing entitled ``Beyond NCLB: Views on the Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization Act.'' For further information regarding this hearing, please contact the committee staff on (202) 224-5501.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, throughout the decades since the Packers and Stockyards Act was enacted in 1921, livestock and poultry producers and growers have depended upon the U.S. Department of Agriculture to enforce basic rules of honest dealing, fairness, and nondiscriminatory treatment when livestock and poultry growers and producers engage in sales and contractual transactions with meat and poultry packers, processors, and dealers. The underlying justification for the Packers and Stockyards Act, and the regulations that have been issued to carry it out, is basic and straightforward. There is inherently a substantial inequality in bargaining power and economic leverage between the individual producer or grower of hogs, or cattle, or poultry, on the one hand, and the packing or processing company on the other hand. That is not to accuse or disparage the packers and processors, but simply to recognize the inherent disparities in economic power in the real world. It is accordingly only reasonable to have some basic Federal rules of the road, so to speak, because livestock and poultry production and processing is a national industry of huge importance to our country and its economy. For many years we have heard repeated testimony before Congress that the Packers and Stockyards Act is not being carried out by the Department of Agriculture, specifically by the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, in a manner that fully and effectively lives up to the language of the statute, its intent, and purposes. For that reason, in crafting the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, as chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, I was proud to work with my colleagues in the committee and with our counterparts in the House of Representatives to include language directing the Secretary of Agriculture to issue new regulations under the Packers and Stockyards Act that would clarify criteria and interpretations for carrying out and enforcing the act. These new regulations are required to establish criteria that the Department of Agriculture will use in determining whether the actions of a packer or processor constitute an undue or unreasonable preference or advantage for one or more producers or growers to the disadvantage of others, in violation of the act; whether a live poultry dealer has provided reasonable notice for suspending the delivery of birds to a grower under a poultry growing contract; under what circumstances it would be an unfair practice in violation of the act for a packer or processor to require a swine or poultry grower to make additional capital investments during the life of a contractual arrangement; and whether a live poultry dealer or swine contractor has provided a reasonable period of time for a swine or poultry contract grower to remedy a breach or failure to perform in order to avoid termination of the contract. In accordance with the farm bill, the Department of Agriculture issued a proposed rule on June 22, 2010, and kept the public comment period open until November 22, 2010. Some 61,000 comments were submitted, which the department has been reviewing and responding to in the process of developing a final rule. The proposed rule is not perfect, of course. That is why there is a public comment process so that anyone who is interested can comment and make recommendations. Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack has made it very clear that the comments were being carefully reviewed so that the proposed rule can be appropriately modified and improved in response to the comments. Contrary to some of the arguments that are being made, the topics and subject matter covered in the proposed rule, and which therefore likely would be encompassed in the final rule, are entirely consistent with the rulemaking process that the 2008 farm bill directed the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct and with the authority provided by the Packers and Stockyards Act. It is not at all correct to assert that the Department of Agriculture has exceeded its authority or in some manner or contradicted the farm bill's directive to issue regulations on specified matter. It is true the proposed rule would do more to interpret and clarify terms in the Packers and Stockyards Act than is specifically required in the farm bill. Most important, the proposed rule would clarify what many believe to be a misinterpretation of the act by some courts that have held that an individual grower or producer cannot succeed on a claim for harm suffered from a violation of the act without an additional showing of harm to competition in the broader market. The effect of these holdings is effectively to deny relief to independent producers and growers for harm caused by unjust, discriminatory, or unfair practices, which are clearly in violation of the act's protections, unless they can show the broader injury to competition. That showing of injury to competition in the broader market is usually very hard or impossible to make. What is lost in these decisions is that the Packers and Stockyards Act was written and intended to provide protection to individual producers and growers against harm from unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practices and similar actions by packers, processors, and dealers. The act was not written or intended to require that harm to competition in the broader market must be shown in order to establish a violation. The Department of Agriculture clearly has the authority to issue regulations to clarify interpretations of the Packers and Stockyards Act in order to ensure that it is properly carried out. This authority of a department or agency to issue regulations that will clarify the interpretation of a statute within its purview is fully supported by basic principles of administrative law established in the decisions of the Supreme Court and other Federal courts. Claims that in some way the proposed rule exceeds the authority of the Department of Agriculture are plainly unfounded. As for the details of the proposed rule, it is not designed or intended to put an end to systems in which packers pay premiums for higher quality or distinctive livestock, for example, ``Certified Angus'' beef, or assess a discount if animals fail to meet standards. The proposed rule is quite clear that it is not designed to prohibit premiums and price differentials that are based on the quality of the livestock or poultry or similar features or circumstances. Because there is a valid economic justification for quality-based premiums and discounts, they are not prohibited by the Packers and Stockyards Act. Accordingly, the proposed rule is clear that such quality-based premiums or discounts are entirely valid and won't be prohibited or jeopardized by the final rule. It just stands to reason, that since there is now obviously economic justification and reward to packers as well as producers for these systems of quality-based premiums and discounts, there will still be incentives and motivation to keep them in place after the final rule is issued. Finally, regarding the claims that the proposed rule will be very costly and eliminate jobs, the short answer is that these studies, as I understand them, are founded on basic misreading and mischaracterization of the terms and intent of the proposed rule and upon misguided and exaggerated predictions of the effects of carrying it out. They are undoubtedly very extreme predictions of the effects of a rule that is designed and intended, fundamentally, to do no more than simply to ensure fair and nondiscriminatory treatment of livestock and poultry producers and growers in the market. This rule is vitally important to producers and growers across our country. We should not in legislation prevent the Department of Agriculture from going ahead to make improvements and modifications and issue a final rule that is greatly needed to enhance the effectiveness of the Packers and Stockyards Act.