Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Again, I want--I recognize the Senator wants to speak. Let's do this in a logical, orderly manner. If people want to be here to speak, I think the Senator from Colorado made some good points. I was yielding to him for a question. I would yield if the Senator from Minnesota has a question. Then, obviously, the Senator from Kentucky will have every right to speak.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield to the Senator from Minnesota for a question.

Mr. HARKIN. It started at least a year and a half ago, maybe a year and three-quarters.

Mr. HARKIN. I did not know if the Senator from Kentucky wanted me to yield to him for a question to get involved in the colloquy or the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. HARKIN. I believe I have the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 19, 2011, in Dirksen Room 106, for the consideration of a bill to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am sorry the Senator from Kentucky is objecting to our meeting. I say to my friend from Kentucky, the one thing I believe both Senator Enzi and I did and other members of our committee on both sides of the aisle did to get this bill to where it is was to put aside ideology--to put aside ideology--to do what is best for our kids. I believe the HELP Committee--on both sides of the aisle, Senator Enzi and I on both sides--has done everything possible to move the bill in a considerate, logical legislative manner. We started on this last year. I say to my friend from Kentucky, we had 10 hearings last year-- 10 good, long hearings. We had superintendents. We had teachers. We had principals. We had broad input from across America as to what they wanted in a reauthorization bill. I am sorry the Senator was not here last year, but the Senate is a continuing body. Does that mean every 2 years we have to start all over from scratch every time? So we had all our hearings last year. And that was cleared again with Senator Enzi and me. We talked about: Well, lets get the hearings out of the road, and this year we could focus on putting the bill together. So we had our hearings. I say to my friend, we brought in teachers, principals, superintendents from all over America. Then, starting in January, we began a time-honored process whereby the chair and ranking member started working on putting the bill together with our professional staff. That is why we have professional staff. Senator Alexander was involved in that. Other Senators were brought in--Senator Bennet, Senator Franken. Others on the Republican side were brought in on that. I would say this: The Senator from Kentucky had every day since he was sworn in in January to come to me or go to Senator Enzi and say: I am on the committee. Here is what I would like in the bill. And that would have been considered. Other Senators did that. I see two of them sitting here right now who came and said: Here is what I would like to have in the bill. Well, I sat down with Senator Enzi. We discussed it. Some yes, some no, some modifications--we would work it out through the process as we went through. I do not know if the Senator from Kentucky went to see Senator Enzi about what he wanted in the bill. I know he did not come see me. Our doors are open. There was no secret that we were meeting about this. We started in January. Everybody on our committee, the staffs, all knew that. That is the legislative process. When it was all done, we wanted to put together a bipartisan bill. That is what we did. I say to my friend from Kentucky, it was not filed 48 hours ago; it was filed a week ago yesterday, Tuesday. That bill was filed. It was put online. I put that bill online. So we had a whole week to look at it, and, quite frankly, what happened is we got feedback. I say to my friend, we put the bill online. We got feedback from a lot of people--the community out there-- and as a result of that, we made some final changes. That is the legislative process. Senator Enzi and I worked together on a managers' amendment to incorporate some of the objections that came in during the week to make the bill even more bipartisan. We filed that managers' amendment on Monday morning at 10 o'clock. But that was not the whole bill. I put the whole bill online a week ago Tuesday. It was just the managers' amendment that was, again, a fine-tuning of it before we met in markup. So I say the Senator from Kentucky had every opportunity to let us know what he wanted in that bill, and I never saw him. I never saw him. He never came to me. I am on the floor all the time. My door is open. My staff is available. My professional staff is available. If the Senator from Kentucky had something he wanted in the bill and it was not included, he has the right to offer an amendment. I wanted this committee to operate in an open manner--in a manner in which we have operated in the past legislatively. If the Senator did not have something in the bill that he wanted in, he has the right to offer an amendment and to debate it and to get a vote on it in our committee. The Senator has filed 74 amendments. We had 144 amendments filed. Under our rules, they had to be filed 48 hours before. The Senator from Kentucky filed 74 amendments. Well, now the Senator from Kentucky is objecting to our even meeting to consider his own amendments. Please, someone, explain the logic of that to the Senator from Iowa. He has the amendments. The process is open. He can offer amendments, get them debated, get them voted on. But the Senator from Kentucky is objecting to us meeting in order to even consider his amendments. Secondly, I heard the Senator again on the floor today--and earlier, when we met earlier this morning in committee to start our process of marking up the bill--he said he wanted to do away with No Child Left Behind. That is exactly what this bill does. It gets rid of No Child Left Behind and some of the narrow proscriptions and prescriptions in the bill and does, in fact, return a lot to local control. And we build a partnership with the Federal Government and State and local governments--a better partnership than what we have had in the past. I think that is why we have a good, bipartisan bill. Again, the Senator from Kentucky and I probably have different views on this. I understand that. That is why we have the Senate. That is why we have debates. That is why we have committee meetings and markups. If I were writing the bill, I would write a completely different bill than the Senator from Kentucky would write. He would write one completely different from mine. That is why we meet in committees. That is why we hammer these things out over a long process. You do not just shut the door and say: It is my way or no way. I am the chairman. I am willing to listen to his amendments and have him offer them. But how can I hear his amendments, how can we consider his amendments if the Senator will not even allow us to meet under the rules of the Senate? I have no logical explanation for that. Well, there is a lot more I could say, Mr. President, but this is just illogical. That is all I can say: It is just illogical. I see the Senator from Colorado on his feet. I yield to the Senator from Colorado for any questions he might have.

Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Minnesota, I think that is right. If the Senator wants to be engaged in the process of legislation, then, as I say, the Senator from Minnesota has talked to me many times about what he wants in the bill. The Senator from Colorado and even Members on the Republican side have talked to me about what should be in the bill, what should not be in the bill. That is the process. I would say to my friend from Minnesota, I have been chairman twice before, not of this committee but of the Agriculture Committee when we did major agricultural bills. One was in 2001 and the other one was in 2007, and both times I worked with the ranking members, basically, the same kind of process. We got bipartisan bills through that were signed by President Bush both times, 2001 and in 2007. This was the process we used. We let amendments be offered. We opened it up. No one on the committee ever raised an objection to our meeting during the Senate session. We got our jobs done. That is the way we have always done it. That is just the legislative--as I said, considerate, logical legislative process. That is the way we have always conducted it. What it does is it allows Members--Senators who are interested, as the Senator from Minnesota has been so keenly interested in this Education bill, to give them time to go to the ranking member, to go to me, to go to other Members, to see what they can get in the bill. I say to my friend from Minnesota, I am sure we did not put in everything the Senator wanted in the bill.

Mr. HARKIN. But I think the Senator has the right to offer the amendments in committee.

Mr. HARKIN. I will yield the floor very soon. I say to my friend from Kentucky, I will say again: We put this bill online 1 week ago Tuesday. Some of the mail the Senator is talking about, the letters came in after that because they read the bill. I think the primary objections on all those letters had to do with teacher evaluations and what we were going to do in the bill on teacher evaluations. That is what we fixed in the managers' amendment that we laid down Monday morning. I am told--I have not seen it--but I am told the National Education Association, for example, has withdrawn from that letter because of the fix we made. That is why we put the bill online. I said that earlier. We put it online. A lot of objections came in. We modified it in the managers' amendment to move forward on that bill. That is exactly how we do it. I say to my friend from Kentucky that we have had a whole week. Again, my friend filed 74 amendments to the bill. How can you file 74 amendments if you haven't read the bill? It seems to me that if you file 74 amendments, you must have read the bill. I assume that last week the Senator must have read the bill and then filed 74 amendments. You cannot have it both ways--say I haven't read the bill, but here are 74 amendments. That doesn't hold together logically. Again, I will close on this note. The Senator from Colorado is absolutely right. We are here talking about process and who is up, who is down, all of this kind of stuff. These teachers out in America who are grappling with kids who are under this burden of No Child Left Behind and these AYPs, knowing that no matter how much they progress their kids in 1 year, they are still failing--this bill relieves them of that, takes that yoke off them. Every one of us has heard from teachers, parents, and administrators that this No Child Left Behind is not good, that it has to be fixed, and that is what our bill does. How are we going to change it and fix it if we are not even allowed to meet? Again, I hope the Senator from Kentucky will allow us to move forward in this process and allow us to have our amendment process. I say to my friend he has another shot at this bill on the floor. We will have committee, and we will come to the floor, and amendments will be offered on the floor. That is the legislative process. No one person gets to dictate what is in this bill--not me, not Senator Enzi, not the Senator from Kentucky. But all working together collaboratively in a bipartisan fashion, I think we can move this bill forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have said on a number of occasions that trade is an incredibly important part of our economy, especially in my home State of Iowa. For this reason, I am a longtime supporter of policies designed to open foreign markets to our Nation's exports through new trade agreements. I have fought to break down the barriers that many other countries have erected to block our exports, and I have sought to reduce the practices by which many of them seek to compete unfairly in world markets. However, trade is more than just the shipment of goods and services across borders. Trade policy and the impacts of trade also have wide ranging consequences for workers and the environment inside the trading countries. Properly designed, our trade policy can expand opportunities and promote the welfare of workers in both the United States and abroad. Ill-designed trade policy can have the opposite effect as well. For this reason, I have to express my strong opposition to the free trade agreement with Colombia. Simply put, Colombia is one of the most dangerous countries in the world to be a trade unionist. According to Colombia's National Labor School, ENS, in the last 25 years, over 2,800 Colombian trade unionists have been killed. According to the AFL-CIO, 23 trade unionists have been assassinated this year alone in Colombia, including 16 since the conclusion of the labor action plan, which I will speak more about later. The ENS also reports that over the last 10 years, Colombian trade unionists have faced almost 4,000 death threats. While some improvements have been made in recent years, the Colombian government has not sought to hold those responsible for these brutal crimes. According to the International Labor Organization's, ILO, High- level Tripartite Mission to Colombia, ``the majority of trade unionist killings have not yet been investigated nor have the perpetrators, including the intellectual authors of these crimes, been brought to justice.'' ENS data indicates that since 1986, only 6 percent of the cases brought to trial have resulted in any convictions. The current Colombian government led by President Santos has made some progress. I believe that the Colombian action plan related to labor rights that the Obama administration negotiated with the Santos administration is a step in the right direction. If the changes that the Santos administration have begun making are continued, and the labor action plan is fully implemented and enforced, Colombia will have made significant progress to addressing many of my concerns. But given all that I have described earlier, it would be irresponsible of us to rush into a free trade agreement before we see the results of this endeavor. Unfortunately, while the labor action plan requires the Colombian government to issue new laws, regulations, and reports, there is no mechanism to ensure that these policies will be effective at improving the living and working conditions of Colombians. The only follow-up mechanism included in the labor action plan is a series of meetings to take place in 2012 and 2013. After 2013, those meetings may cease to occur. Even more, should Colombia not meet its obligations under the labor action plan or take future action that is contrary to the labor action plan, only some portions may be subject to the binding dispute settlement procedures in the text of the agreement. The limited enforceability of the action plan further cautions against moving forward too hastily, as we will not have enough leverage to ensure that fundamental labor rights are respected once the agreement is implemented. As my colleagues may remember, the side agreement to the North American Free Trade Agreement is ultimately meaningless and unenforceable. One of the goals of our trade policy must be to further the internationally recognized right of workers to organize. Supporting the rights of workers to organize freely, bargain collectively, and live safely is not just good for workers abroad, but it helps workers in the United States as well. The United States simply cannot compete in a global race to the bottom when it comes to labor standards. Our workers are some of the most highly skilled and productive workers in the world. But they simply cannot compete against countries that make things more cheaply because they don't respect the rights of their workers, have safe workplaces, or pay their workers a living wage. Unfortunately, this agreement will not help us further that goal. I would like to raise a second significant concern I have about the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. As many of my colleagues know, I have been working on reducing abusive and exploitative child labor around the world for nearly two decades. I first introduced a bill on this issue in 1992. According to the best estimates by the International Labor Organization, ILO, there are 215 million child laborers between the ages of 5 and 17 who are engaged in today's global economy. Of these 215 million child laborers, 115 million are engaged in hazardous work. These 115 million powerless children are working in mines, in fishing operations and on coffee plantations. It is appalling that this is still occurring in the 21st century. These children are robbed of their childhoods. Many are denied an education and any hope for a brighter future. They will grow up illiterate and exploited, creating a wellspring of future social conflict and strife. We have made some progress over the years by funding programs for the remediation of child laborers through our contribution to the ILO's International Program for the Elimination of Child Labor, IPEC. In 2000, I successfully amended the Trade and Development Act with a provision directing that no trade benefits under the Generalized System of Preferences, GSP, be granted to any country that does not live up to its commitments to eliminate the worst forms of child labor. I required that the President submit a yearly report to Congress on the steps being taken by each GSP beneficiary country to carry out its commitments to end abusive and exploitative child labor. I want to explain clearly to my colleagues what I mean when I refer to abusive and exploitative child labor. It is not children who work part-time after school or on weekends. There is nothing wrong with that. That is not the issue. What I am referring to is the definition set out by ILO Convention 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labor. This is not just a Western, or a developed-world, standard. It is a global standard that has been ratified by 174 countries. It has been ratified by Colombia. The United States was the third country in the world to ratify this convention. Unfortunately, the Department of Labor's Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor that was released this month, states up front that Colombia, ``has not provided adequate resources to the National Strategy to Eradicate the Worst Forms of Child Labor. Children continue to work in agriculture, including forced coca cultivation, and in mining.'' The report further finds that children are forced to work in domestic service, are sexually exploited, transport illegal drugs, and even are used by armed militants as child soldiers. In addition to these shocking practices, eight Colombian products appear in the 2011 List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor, also released by DOL this month. These products include coffee, sugarcane, and gold. Unfortunately, the implementing legislation now before the Senate for free trade with Colombia actually would take us, and the world, a step backward when it comes to protecting children. That is right. This free trade agreement with Colombia, which replaces GSP provisions in governing trade between our two countries, will take us backward with respect to abusive and exploitative child labor. Under GSP, the President now must report to Congress annually regarding Colombia's child labor practices, and if Colombia is not meeting the obligations that it undertook as a signatory to the ILO Convention, if Colombia is not acting to eliminate the worst forms of child labor, then trade sanctions are available to us to require enforcement of internationally recognized standards. That is so that our companies, and our workers, are not subjected to the unfair competition that abusive labor practices allow. Under this new implementing legislation for free trade with Colombia, on the other hand, if it is enacted, neither of those things I just mentioned will be true. Our trade negotiators should not be weakening protections that we in Congress put in place to ensure that free trade can be consistent with respect for international child labor standards. Supporting abusive and exploitative child labor abroad does not help create jobs in America. Just the opposite, it hurts that effort. Our workers and our local businesses should not be competing with the worst forms of child labor abroad. As a result, I strongly believe that we need to put the break on this flawed trade agreement. It is time for us to begin passing fair trade agreements that promote good quality jobs both here and abroad and work to end the worst forms of child labor. This agreement does not meet that test.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in open session on Tuesday, October 18, 2011, at 10 a.m. in SD-430 to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Recession and Older Americans: Where Do We Go From Here?'' For further information regarding this hearing please contact Ashley Carson-Cottingham of the subcommittee staff on (202) 224-5480.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am delighted to introduce this bill today. This legislation will play a critical role in ensuring the safety of our Nation's youth who especially deserve to be safe and cared for when they are trying to get better in a residential treatment facility. This bill is a companion to The Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act, which was introduced in the House today by Representative George Miller. I commend Representative Miller for his commitment to this important issue. The emotional and mental well-being of our Nation's youth is of paramount importance. In recent years, the prevalence of child abuse in residential facilities has jeopardized the livelihood of our nation's next generation. In 2005, The Government Accountability Office reported over 1,500 incidences of abuse and neglect by facility staff in 34 States. These incidences included shocking cases in which youth were denied food and water or held in stress positions for extended periods of time. In 2006, 28 States reported at least one death in a residential facility. This includes my State of Iowa and this is simply unacceptable. These deaths were a result of accidents or suicides that, in some instances, may have been caused by a lack of supervision or neglect. In 2009, 1,770 children and youth died from maltreatment, which in some cases, may be attributed to the inexperienced staff members who lack the proper training or qualifications to serve in their roles. This legislation will make significant strides in improving the quality of care in residential program facilities. This bill will make improvements in four key areas that will ensure that our children and youth our safe. First, it includes new national standards that will prevent residential facilities from physically, mentally, or sexually abusing children in their care. Second, this bill increases transparency on qualifications, roles, and responsibilities of all current staff members. Third, it increases restrictions that will hold residential programs accountable for violating the law. Lastly, this bill allows states the opportunity to step in to protect teens in residential programs. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the youth who have lost their lives while in the care of a residential treatment facility and their parents and families. No child should be forced to suffer abuse, neglect, injury, or even death while they are trying to better themselves in a residential program. I would also like to mention those who have worked so hard on my staff. I would like to thank Dan Smith and Pam Smith, who do a great job shepherding the undertakings of our committee. I would like to thank Bethany Little, David Johns, Ashley Eden and Michael Gamel- McCormick of my staff. This is a critical step forward to making sure that we ensure the safety of America's youth. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am delighted to introduce this bill today. This legislation will play a critical role in ensuring the safety of our Nation's youth who especially deserve to be safe and cared for when they are trying to get better in a residential treatment facility. This bill is a companion to The Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act, which was introduced in the House today by Representative George Miller. I commend Representative Miller for his commitment to this important issue. The emotional and mental well-being of our Nation's youth is of paramount importance. In recent years, the prevalence of child abuse in residential facilities has jeopardized the livelihood of our nation's next generation. In 2005, The Government Accountability Office reported over 1,500 incidences of abuse and neglect by facility staff in 34 States. These incidences included shocking cases in which youth were denied food and water or held in stress positions for extended periods of time. In 2006, 28 States reported at least one death in a residential facility. This includes my State of Iowa and this is simply unacceptable. These deaths were a result of accidents or suicides that, in some instances, may have been caused by a lack of supervision or neglect. In 2009, 1,770 children and youth died from maltreatment, which in some cases, may be attributed to the inexperienced staff members who lack the proper training or qualifications to serve in their roles. This legislation will make significant strides in improving the quality of care in residential program facilities. This bill will make improvements in four key areas that will ensure that our children and youth our safe. First, it includes new national standards that will prevent residential facilities from physically, mentally, or sexually abusing children in their care. Second, this bill increases transparency on qualifications, roles, and responsibilities of all current staff members. Third, it increases restrictions that will hold residential programs accountable for violating the law. Lastly, this bill allows states the opportunity to step in to protect teens in residential programs. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the youth who have lost their lives while in the care of a residential treatment facility and their parents and families. No child should be forced to suffer abuse, neglect, injury, or even death while they are trying to better themselves in a residential program. I would also like to mention those who have worked so hard on my staff. I would like to thank Dan Smith and Pam Smith, who do a great job shepherding the undertakings of our committee. I would like to thank Bethany Little, David Johns, Ashley Eden and Michael Gamel- McCormick of my staff. This is a critical step forward to making sure that we ensure the safety of America's youth. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the so-called supercommittee created by the Budget Control Act has begun their work. It is mandated to produce a plan by November 23 that will reduce future deficits by at least $1.5 trillion. As chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I have been invited to submit recommendations to the supercommittee, and I will do so in the days ahead. Certainly, I wish this group well. However, it is critically important we define success in terms that matter to working Americans. Frankly, I am deeply disturbed by the Washington groupthink that defines success narrowly in terms of maximizing deficit reduction. I have come to the floor to urge members of the supercommittee to embrace a broader and more powerful definition of success. Success must include boosting the economy and creating jobs. After all, the most effective way to reduce the deficit is to help 25 million unemployed and underemployed Americans find jobs and become taxpayers once again. There can be no sustained deficit reduction without a recovery of the economy and a return to normal levels of employment. Indeed, just yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office released an analysis showing that if our economy were not in recession--if our economy were not in recession--if it were employing labor and capital at normal levels, the deficit would be reduced next year by an estimated $343 billion--a reduction of one-third of the deficit in 1 year if we just had normal employment. So I have a simple but urgent message to the supercommittee: Go big on jobs. That message would be strongly seconded by people such as Connie Smith of Tama, IA. In January, she was laid off after working 27 years for the same telecom company. Since being laid off, she has been working as a contractor doing the same type of work for less pay and no benefits. Jean Whitt would also agree. She was laid off in 2008 and is now a student at Iowa Western Community College, striving for a new career in nursing. She is hoping good jobs will be available when she graduates. As I said, inside the Washington bubble, our leaders have persuaded themselves that the No. 1 issue confronting America is the budget deficit. I assure everyone that ordinary Americans are focused on a far more urgent deficit: the jobs deficit. But I am also concerned about a third deficit: the deficit of imagination and vision in Washington today. I am dismayed by our failure to confront the current economic crisis with the boldness earlier generations of Americans summoned in times of national challenge. Let's be clear about the staggering scale of today's challenge. Our Nation remains mired in the most severe period of joblessness since the Great Depression. As I said, some 25 million Americans are desperate to find full-time employment. According to new data from the Census Bureau, the poverty rate has risen to 15 percent--the highest level in 18 years. Twenty percent of American children are being raised in poverty--one out of every five kids in America. Last week, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Ben Bernanke, said unemployment is a ``national crisis.'' Very true, Mr. Bernanke. It is a national crisis. It is far and away the No. 1 concern of the American people. That is why an exclusive, single-minded obsession-- obsession--with slashing spending and reducing the deficit is not just misguided, it is counterproductive. If the supercommittee cuts the deficit by $1.5 trillion and does nothing to create jobs, this would amount to a massive dose of antistimulus. It will further drain demand from the economy and destroy even more jobs. That, in turn, will make the deficit worse, not better. It is the equivalent of applying leeches to a patient who needs a transfusion. We must stop this mindless march to austerity. Smart countries, when they have these kinds of challenges, do not just turn a chainsaw on themselves. Instead of the current slash-and-burn approach, which is being sold through fear and fatalism, we need an approach that reflects the hopes and aspirations of the American people. To be sure, we must agree on necessary spending cuts and tax increases. But we must continue to invest in what will spur economic growth, create jobs, and strengthen the middle class, knowing this is the only sustainable way to bring deficits under control. Again, I say to the supercommittee: If you are serious about reducing the deficit, you must put job creation front and center in your deliberations and agenda, not just slashing and cutting government spending to reduce the deficit. I do not want to be misunderstood. My preference, of course, is always to reduce the deficit. I know that. As a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, I appreciate that we must seize every opportunity to prudently--prudently--reduce Federal spending. There are opportunities, including in the Pentagon, to reduce Federal spending while minimizing further damage to the economy and jobs. However, I believe we must be equally willing to say no--no--to foolish, destructive budget cuts. Most important, as I have said, the supercommittee must broaden its focus to include a sharp emphasis on creating jobs and boosting the economy. That is why I was very pleased by the plan presented by President Obama: the American Jobs Act. As the President said in his speech to Congress, the American Jobs Act boils down to two things: putting people back to work and more money in the pockets of working Americans. Most importantly, in my book, the American Jobs Act would dramatically ramp up investments in infrastructure in order to boost U.S. competitiveness and directly create millions of new jobs. Specifically, the American Jobs Act includes $30 billion to renovate some 35,000 schools and community colleges nationwide. This would create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, especially in the hard-hit construction industry. The legislation--the President's bill--provides $30 billion to help local school districts hire and retain teachers. This new fund would save or create nearly 400,000 education jobs. In addition, the American Jobs Act includes $50 billion for immediate investment in our transportation infrastructure. Again, this will dramatically boost employment, while modernizing the arteries and veins of our commerce. Now people say: How are we going to pay for all this and these other investments, keeping our teachers in the classroom, renovating the infrastructure? How are we going to pay for all this to get our economy back on track? For the answer, we again need to listen to the American people. I received a heartfelt message from Dan Carver, a fifth-grade teacher in Carlisle, IA. He says he is struggling similar to other middle-class Americans to pay his bills and his taxes and he does not understand why corporations and the very wealthy are not also paying their fair share. In poll after poll after poll, by 2-to-1 margins--2-to-1 margins-- Americans want an approach that includes tax increases on those who can most afford it, those whose incomes have skyrocketed in recent years, even as middle-class incomes have fallen, those who have benefited the most from tax breaks initiated during the Bush administration. By a 2- to-1 margin--this should be a no-brainer for people elected to Congress. Read the polls. That is what people want done. We see all those people up on Wall Street. It is now spreading to Washington. There is even an event planned for Mason City, IA, this weekend by a lot of young people, saying: Look, we have to raise revenue. We can't just slash and cut back and retreat. We need to raise revenue and charge forward. We would be foolish to ignore the voices of working Americans from all walks of life. For more than a decade now, these good citizens have been told that tax breaks for the wealthy will result in millions of new jobs and a booming economy. That is what they have been told. They were told wealthy Americans are so-called job creators, and if we just shove enough tax breaks their way, jobs will magically bloom. Frankly, this is the same old theory of trickle-down economics, and it manifestly has never worked. For ordinary Americans, the only things that have trickled down are wage cuts, mass unemployment, upside-down mortgages, personal bankruptcies, and disappearing pensions. Instead of this failed trickle-down economics for the rich, it is time for percolate-up economics for middle-class Americans. We have a saying for this out in the Midwest, and I have heard it many times: You do not fertilize a tree from the top down. You have to put it in at the roots. It is time to invest directly in jobs by renovating our crumbling infrastructure, rebuilding our schools, putting laid-off teachers back to work. By all means, it is time to ask those who have benefited the most from our economy to pay more--yes, to pay more--to help finance these urgent investments. Because these are the kinds of things individuals cannot do on their own. An individual cannot rebuild a highway or a school. An individual cannot retrofit a building. An individual cannot build new energy efficiency systems. But we can do this acting together. That is why it is time to ask those who have benefited the most from our economy to pay some more. I close by reiterating that we need to pursue a path that, first and foremost, right now, focuses on job creation; in the longer term, focuses on deficit reduction. After we get the economy going and get people back to work and being taxpayers again, then we can reduce the deficit. As the report showed this week, if we were to just have normal employment levels, we would reduce the deficit by $343 billion. So I say again to the supercommittee: Do not just focus on slashing, cutting, and retreating. Focus on raising revenue and charging ahead, investing in education, innovation, infrastructure. It means a level playing field with fair taxation--fair taxation--and a strong ladder of opportunity to give every American access to the middle class. It is time to put America back to work. It is time to change the tenor of the debate. It is time to get away from this groupthink in Washington; that if only, if only we would just cut more government spending, somehow magically people will go back to work. It is not going to happen. Only in your dreams. It will only happen if we are bold enough, as our forefathers and people before us were bold enough, to raise the necessary revenue to put this country back to work. That should be the first charge of this supercommittee. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Well, I thank the Senator very much. I thank the Senator from Ohio, a great friend and a great supporter of working Americans. I would just say that the bill that Senator Brown has been championing is now leading the charge on the China currency bill, and I think it is one of the important steps forward in making sure we start creating jobs for Americans. How can we create jobs for Americans when we have a Chinese currency that is underpinning their exports to America, undercutting our jobs in this country? So this is a big step forward. I hope we can get cloture. I hope we can move forward on the bill. So I thank the Senator from Ohio for his steadfastness on making sure we got the bill to the floor, and I hope we get the votes to pass it. Again, we can focus on the jobs in this country, but if we are just going to continue to allow China to undercut us in just every possible way through manipulating their currency so they can undercut us by 20 or 25 percent on a lot of goods that come into this country, how are we going to manufacture those things?

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator from Ohio clearly understands percolate-up economics. I appreciate that very much. I thank the Senator from Ohio for his leadership.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Juliana Richard and Kathryn Berge of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's proceedings.

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, October 11, 2011, at 1 p.m. at the Kellogg Conference Center, Gallaudet University, 800 Florida Avenue, NE, Washington, DC, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Leveraging Higher Education to Improve Employment Outcomes for People Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing.'' For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Andrew Imparato of the committee staff on (202) 228-3453. committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in open session on Wednesday, October 12, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. in SD-430 to conduct a hearing entitled ``The State of Chronic Disease Prevention.'' For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Craig Martinez of the committee staff on (202) 224-7675. committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in executive session on Tuesday, October 18, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. in SD-106 to mark up a bill that would reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; and, any nominations cleared for action. For further information regarding this meeting, please contact the committee on (202) 224-5375.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I join Senators Leahy and Inouye to introduce the Medical-Legal Partnership for Health Act. This legislation will reduce our Nation's health care costs and improve the health of vulnerable patients by building upon the great work that medical-legal partnerships are doing every day, all across the United States. Medical-legal partnerships bring legal aid services into medical settings, such as hospitals and community health centers, to help patients overcome problems that create and perpetuate poor health. In today's difficult economy, many Americans are struggling to meet the basic health needs of themselves and their children. This may mean struggling to pay the high costs of medical care or prescription drugs, or putting off an annual check-up until next year. But some health care needs are non-medical in nature, like making sure your home is properly heated in the winter; that it is not infested by insects or rodents; and that it is free of domestic violence. These needs may require more than just medical care; they may require legal assistance. Unfortunately, most health care providers are not equipped to deal with the non-medical issues that lead some patients to seek medical care repeatedly or on an ongoing basis. Despite the perception that legal issues frequently affect their patients, a survey of physicians at Boston Medical Center revealed that fewer than 20 percent of doctors knew how to refer patients to legal resources. As a result, many patients never address the root cause of their health problems, leading to costly visits to the emergency room and lengthy hospital stays. Medical-legal partnerships connect patients with the legal assistance they need to address these root causes. Rather than just applying a temporary fix to a health issue, they help patients get healthy and stay healthy. In the process, medical-legal partnerships generate substantial cost savings for families and the entire health care system. One study found a 50 percent reduction in emergency room visits following the intervention of medical-legal partnerships, saving families hundreds of dollars per visit. Another study showed that medical-legal partnerships reduced the cost per pediatric asthma patient from $735 to $181 through fewer emergency room visits, while also resulting in decreased frequency and duration of asthma attacks following an intervention. These cost savings not only help keep families out of potentially crippling debt, but they also help reduce emergency room overcrowding and decrease health care expenditures on preventable health conditions. Unfortunately, many patients are unlikely to seek legal services on their own. Eighty-five percent of patients who sought legal assistance from one medical-legal partnership in California had not used legal resources before and more than 78 percent were not previously aware of legal services at all. By embedding legal services in health care settings, medical-legal partnerships raise awareness of legal services so that patients are more likely to address problems before they turn into crises. In an article about medical-legal partnerships last year, the Los Angeles Times told the story of Maria Perez. Maria had a fever of 103, her body ached and she had trouble breathing. After being told in the emergency room that she had pneumonia, she went to a clinic in South Los Angeles for a follow-up appointment. The doctor asked Perez about her housing situation. Her apartment had cockroaches and mice, and rain fell through a broken window and filled the walls with mold. The doctor wrote prescriptions to treat the pneumonia and an asthma flare-up and then sent her down the hall to talk to a lawyer. After the attorney contacted both the landlord and the Los Angeles Housing Department, Maria's living conditions improved, and so did her health. She told the Times: ``The medicine wasn't what cured me. It was [my lawyer] and what he did.'' Medical-legal partnerships also offer a critical lifeline to victims of domestic violence. In my home state of Iowa, a young woman named Brenda sought help to escape an abusive marriage. Her husband was a gang member and threatened to kill her or have members of his gang kill her. One night, while attempting to flee an attack, Brenda's husband pulled her back into the house and beat and choked her until she lost consciousness. When Brenda sought medical care the next day, her care providers referred her to Iowa Legal Aid's Health and Law Project for help. Iowa Legal Aid helped Brenda obtain a protective order, which included custody of the couple's daughter. Iowa Legal Aid is currently helping Brenda with a divorce so that she and her daughter will have protection and long-term autonomy from her abuser; thereby reducing the need for ongoing health care. The success of these programs is catching on. The first medical-legal partnership was created nearly two decades ago at Boston Medical Center. By 2009, there were 60 such partnerships across the country. Today there are 90 medical-legal partnerships working with more than 240 health services providers. Medical-legal partnerships have attracted the attention of corporate America, too. In July, Walmart became the first corporation to take a lead role in a medical-legal partnership, and I commend them for recognizing the valuable role these programs can play in our communities. After graduating from law school, I served as a Legal Services attorney in Iowa. I learned first-hand how crucial this assistance is to struggling families and individuals who have no place else to turn when they are taken advantage of or abused. I know the invaluable legal help provided to battered women trying to leave abusive relationships while fearing for their safety and the safety of their children. I know that, without access to the legal system, the poor are often powerless against the injustices they suffer. I am particularly proud of the success of a medical-legal partnership in my home state of Iowa. The Iowa Legal Aid Health and Law Project harnesses the talents of Iowa physicians and attorneys to improve the lives of vulnerable Iowans. By partnering with 17 hospitals and health centers across my state, the Iowa Legal Aid Health and Law Project is able to extend services from Sioux City to Dubuque, and from Council Bluffs to Fort Dodge. In 2009, the program served 880 Iowans, and 94 percent of their cases had a positive outcome. The Iowa Legal Aid Health and Law Project does a remarkable job. They are just one example of the great work going on across the country. You may be surprised to learn that when it comes to medical-legal partnerships, a little money can go a long way. Iowa's program was started with a federal investment of less than $300,000. The program prevents hospital admissions and emergency room visits that cost hospitals and patients many thousands of dollars in health care costs and insurance premiums. A modest investment in these community programs can help people achieve healthier, safer lives and prevent future hospitalizations and health care costs. That sounds like common sense to me. And that's why, today, I am proud to introduce the Medical-Legal Partnership for Health Act: to give health care providers and lawyers across the country the opportunity to start such programs. The Act creates a federal demonstration program to help create, strengthen, and evaluate medical-legal partnerships. Overall, this legislation will support 60 partnership sites in community health centers, the Veterans Administration, hospitals, and other health care settings. I was proud to have the support of former Senator Kit Bond of Missouri when I introduced this legislation during the previous Congress. I know there are many Americans who think that the two political parties in Washington can't agree on anything these days, but this is an issue that has attracted bipartisan support in the past and it is my strong hope that it will do so again. In the spirit of compromise and bipartisanship, I have taken contentious issues off the table: the bill excludes federal money from being used toward class action law suits, medical malpractice cases, representation of undocumented individuals, and abortion or abortion-counseling services. Medical-legal partnerships also have broad support from prominent organizations representing physicians and attorneys. They've received the endorsement of the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Hospital Association, and the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education, to name just a few. Through this community-based, common-sense investment, we will be able to help some of our most vulnerable citizens avoid illness and hospitalization, while reducing costs across the entire health care system. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this investment in medical-legal partnerships. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I join Senators Leahy and Inouye to introduce the Medical-Legal Partnership for Health Act. This legislation will reduce our Nation's health care costs and improve the health of vulnerable patients by building upon the great work that medical-legal partnerships are doing every day, all across the United States. Medical-legal partnerships bring legal aid services into medical settings, such as hospitals and community health centers, to help patients overcome problems that create and perpetuate poor health. In today's difficult economy, many Americans are struggling to meet the basic health needs of themselves and their children. This may mean struggling to pay the high costs of medical care or prescription drugs, or putting off an annual check-up until next year. But some health care needs are non-medical in nature, like making sure your home is properly heated in the winter; that it is not infested by insects or rodents; and that it is free of domestic violence. These needs may require more than just medical care; they may require legal assistance. Unfortunately, most health care providers are not equipped to deal with the non-medical issues that lead some patients to seek medical care repeatedly or on an ongoing basis. Despite the perception that legal issues frequently affect their patients, a survey of physicians at Boston Medical Center revealed that fewer than 20 percent of doctors knew how to refer patients to legal resources. As a result, many patients never address the root cause of their health problems, leading to costly visits to the emergency room and lengthy hospital stays. Medical-legal partnerships connect patients with the legal assistance they need to address these root causes. Rather than just applying a temporary fix to a health issue, they help patients get healthy and stay healthy. In the process, medical-legal partnerships generate substantial cost savings for families and the entire health care system. One study found a 50 percent reduction in emergency room visits following the intervention of medical-legal partnerships, saving families hundreds of dollars per visit. Another study showed that medical-legal partnerships reduced the cost per pediatric asthma patient from $735 to $181 through fewer emergency room visits, while also resulting in decreased frequency and duration of asthma attacks following an intervention. These cost savings not only help keep families out of potentially crippling debt, but they also help reduce emergency room overcrowding and decrease health care expenditures on preventable health conditions. Unfortunately, many patients are unlikely to seek legal services on their own. Eighty-five percent of patients who sought legal assistance from one medical-legal partnership in California had not used legal resources before and more than 78 percent were not previously aware of legal services at all. By embedding legal services in health care settings, medical-legal partnerships raise awareness of legal services so that patients are more likely to address problems before they turn into crises. In an article about medical-legal partnerships last year, the Los Angeles Times told the story of Maria Perez. Maria had a fever of 103, her body ached and she had trouble breathing. After being told in the emergency room that she had pneumonia, she went to a clinic in South Los Angeles for a follow-up appointment. The doctor asked Perez about her housing situation. Her apartment had cockroaches and mice, and rain fell through a broken window and filled the walls with mold. The doctor wrote prescriptions to treat the pneumonia and an asthma flare-up and then sent her down the hall to talk to a lawyer. After the attorney contacted both the landlord and the Los Angeles Housing Department, Maria's living conditions improved, and so did her health. She told the Times: ``The medicine wasn't what cured me. It was [my lawyer] and what he did.'' Medical-legal partnerships also offer a critical lifeline to victims of domestic violence. In my home state of Iowa, a young woman named Brenda sought help to escape an abusive marriage. Her husband was a gang member and threatened to kill her or have members of his gang kill her. One night, while attempting to flee an attack, Brenda's husband pulled her back into the house and beat and choked her until she lost consciousness. When Brenda sought medical care the next day, her care providers referred her to Iowa Legal Aid's Health and Law Project for help. Iowa Legal Aid helped Brenda obtain a protective order, which included custody of the couple's daughter. Iowa Legal Aid is currently helping Brenda with a divorce so that she and her daughter will have protection and long-term autonomy from her abuser; thereby reducing the need for ongoing health care. The success of these programs is catching on. The first medical-legal partnership was created nearly two decades ago at Boston Medical Center. By 2009, there were 60 such partnerships across the country. Today there are 90 medical-legal partnerships working with more than 240 health services providers. Medical-legal partnerships have attracted the attention of corporate America, too. In July, Walmart became the first corporation to take a lead role in a medical-legal partnership, and I commend them for recognizing the valuable role these programs can play in our communities. After graduating from law school, I served as a Legal Services attorney in Iowa. I learned first-hand how crucial this assistance is to struggling families and individuals who have no place else to turn when they are taken advantage of or abused. I know the invaluable legal help provided to battered women trying to leave abusive relationships while fearing for their safety and the safety of their children. I know that, without access to the legal system, the poor are often powerless against the injustices they suffer. I am particularly proud of the success of a medical-legal partnership in my home state of Iowa. The Iowa Legal Aid Health and Law Project harnesses the talents of Iowa physicians and attorneys to improve the lives of vulnerable Iowans. By partnering with 17 hospitals and health centers across my state, the Iowa Legal Aid Health and Law Project is able to extend services from Sioux City to Dubuque, and from Council Bluffs to Fort Dodge. In 2009, the program served 880 Iowans, and 94 percent of their cases had a positive outcome. The Iowa Legal Aid Health and Law Project does a remarkable job. They are just one example of the great work going on across the country. You may be surprised to learn that when it comes to medical-legal partnerships, a little money can go a long way. Iowa's program was started with a federal investment of less than $300,000. The program prevents hospital admissions and emergency room visits that cost hospitals and patients many thousands of dollars in health care costs and insurance premiums. A modest investment in these community programs can help people achieve healthier, safer lives and prevent future hospitalizations and health care costs. That sounds like common sense to me. And that's why, today, I am proud to introduce the Medical-Legal Partnership for Health Act: to give health care providers and lawyers across the country the opportunity to start such programs. The Act creates a federal demonstration program to help create, strengthen, and evaluate medical-legal partnerships. Overall, this legislation will support 60 partnership sites in community health centers, the Veterans Administration, hospitals, and other health care settings. I was proud to have the support of former Senator Kit Bond of Missouri when I introduced this legislation during the previous Congress. I know there are many Americans who think that the two political parties in Washington can't agree on anything these days, but this is an issue that has attracted bipartisan support in the past and it is my strong hope that it will do so again. In the spirit of compromise and bipartisanship, I have taken contentious issues off the table: the bill excludes federal money from being used toward class action law suits, medical malpractice cases, representation of undocumented individuals, and abortion or abortion-counseling services. Medical-legal partnerships also have broad support from prominent organizations representing physicians and attorneys. They've received the endorsement of the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Hospital Association, and the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education, to name just a few. Through this community-based, common-sense investment, we will be able to help some of our most vulnerable citizens avoid illness and hospitalization, while reducing costs across the entire health care system. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this investment in medical-legal partnerships. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Senate is in consideration of trade policy this week with an extension of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. TAA is the main way we help American workers cope with the negative effects of our globalized economy. It is a crucial program in both good times and bad, and it must be renewed. TAA helps workers who have lost jobs through no fault of their own, but rather because of increased competition from imports or because of offshoring. TAA provides workers with critical income support, job training, job search and relocation assistance, and assistance with health insurance premiums. TAA relieves some of the hardship these workers face--helping them get back on their feet and back into jobs. Trade adjustment assistance is designed to help these workers with unique needs. Workers who qualify for TAA are mostly older workers-- more than half are over age 45--and they often have a hard time getting back into the workforce. Unfortunately, we have all heard many sad stories about workers in their fifties or sixties spending years looking for new work. Many have been at their jobs for decades. They often do not have education beyond high school. For these workers especially, the job training and other services offered by TAA are a way for workers to gain new skills and enter into new and growing industries or occupations. We have watched the middle class struggle over the last several decades. We see that incomes are stagnating, health insurance and other costs are skyrocketing, good jobs are disappearing. There are many reasons for this, but unfair trade agreements and the failure to enforce our trade laws are certainly among them. When cheaper imports come in to the U.S., American workers making competing goods or providing competing services can lose their jobs as their companies lose business. We have watched manufacturing companies and manufacturing jobs disappear, and now jobs in the service sector are being offshored as well. So there is no question that TAA must continue. The thousands of workers who have been laid off as a result of trade are depending on us, as will the thousands more who could lose jobs in the future. We also have to restore improvements to the program that were included in the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, but which expired earlier this year. These improvements updated TAA to respond better to our changed economy. The provisions made sure that more resources were available for workers to go back to school and get training in a new field. They also extended TAA to workers in the service sector--in addition to manufacturing workers already covered. They also ensured that the program was available to workers whose jobs have been shipped to any country, like China or India, even where the US does not have a free trade agreement. This expansion has been very successful. More than 4 out of 10 workers--nearly 200,000--who qualified for TAA from the passage of the Recovery Act until those provisions expired earlier this year, qualified because of the Recovery Act provisions. In my State of Iowa, a third of the 4,100 workers that qualified in that time period did so under the new provisions. Some of the workers who have participated in the TAA program had worked at companies that are well known in my State: 1,100 workers from Electrolux alone were certified eligible for TAA. My State of Iowa has suffered many layoffs as jobs have been shipped abroad, especially in the manufacturing sector. I have received many letters from Iowans who have been able to take advantage of TAA. One person who was laid off from her factory job went back to school to become a licensed practical nurse, and she hoped to go on to become a registered nurse. Another Iowan wrote of how important the health care tax credit has been to her and her husband, who was one of 300 people laid off from his company. Another Iowan wrote about how her job was being shipped to China; she was thinking of using TAA services to go back to college. A related program, the TAA Community College and Career Training Grants Program will be extremely beneficial to workers through the community college system in Iowa and other states. I am thankful that this program will soon move ahead, and I understand that grant recipients will be announced next week. This grant program will provide to community colleges in every State funds they desperately need to build capacity and meet training demands for 21st century jobs. The funds will total $500 million a year for 4 years, a huge and necessary injection of funds into the community college system. The grants will enable local leaders from the education, workforce, economic development, and business communities to work together to develop and expand programs as they help workers succeed in acquiring the skills, degrees, and credentials needed for high-wage, high-skill employment while also meeting the needs of employers for skilled workers. Community colleges and their partners can use the funds to develop innovative programs or replicate evidence- based strategies. The advanced manufacturing and health care sectors are among the largest and fastest-growing sectors in the Iowa economy, and recent projections indicate that employers in these sectors will continue to need workers with advanced skills to fill vacancies. TAA training grants support the training of these workers. Iowa Central Community College, for example, has developed an entrepreneurism and business development program to respond to regional needs. Iowa Lakes Community College has started a wind turbine program--one of the first of its kind in the country--that prepares workers for ``green-collar'' jobs and ensures that graduates have the skills that area employers need. I am very hopeful that we will reauthorize TAA this week. When we pass this legislation, we will ensure that a wider range of workers can continue to access TAA benefits and services, and that resources are available so that workers are prepared for high-skill jobs with family- sustaining wages. We owe American workers nothing less.

Mr. HARKIN

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