Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in many of our Nation's poorest communities, children and families do not have access to the educational opportunities that enable youth to start school ready to learn and graduate from secondary school ready to succeed in college and the workforce, achieve economic self-sufficiency, and support families of their own someday. As chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, it is my responsibility to lead the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which affords an exciting opportunity to improve the quality of elementary and secondary education for our children and youth. Our Nation's future economic strength and national security require well-educated workers who are not only academically prepared, but also healthy, understand the importance of community and civic participation, and possess the skills needed to successfully compete in the 21st century global economy. To accomplish these goals, children and youth must have access to a great education and safe and supportive community, beginning at birth. However, in too many communities the consequences of poverty limit the chances students have to obtain a solid academic foundation that leads to college and career success. That is why we need Promise Neighborhoods. Promise Neighborhood partnerships leverage community assets to significantly improve academic outcomes, including school readiness, high school graduation and college entry and completion. Promise Neighborhood partners use data-driven decisionmaking to guide investments in a community-based continuum of high-quality services and evidence-based practices that address the needs of children, from birth through college and career entry. The reauthorization of ESEA provides us with an opportunity to build upon the successes of Promise Neighborhoods, of which there are more than 40 across the country, to ensure that children and youth have access to good schools, integrated students supports and other wrap-around services needed to ensure academic, as well as social and emotional, growth and development. The lack of supports for families and children in distressed neighborhoods has a profound impact on student achievement and development. Children from poor families are less likely to have access to nutritious foods, high-quality early learning programs, adults who read to them every day, and basic health care. As a result, these children are more likely to experience sickness and developmental delays, chronic hunger and homelessness, and abuse and neglect--all of which contribute to slow brain development and low academic achievement. Children from low-income families enter kindergarten approximately three months behind the national average in reading and enter first grade with 900 hours less of one-on-one book-reading time than do their middle-class peers. The number of poor children facing these challenges and experiencing these devastating results is growing at an alarming rate. According to the National Center for Children and Poverty, the number of poor children under age 6 increased by 24 percent between 2000 and 2007. The center also found that in my home State of Iowa, 20 percent of children under age 6 live in poor families. Between 2007 and 2009, the number of children living in poverty nationwide grew by 2.2 million, to 15.5 million. This means that more of our Nation's children are starting school ill-equipped to thrive and gain the skills needed for success in the 21st century. The best way to combat this trend is to ensure that all children, especially those in low-income and under-resourced communities, have access to high-quality early learning programs, effective schools, and family and student supports that prepare them for success. One low-income neighborhood where children and their families receive these essential programs and supports is in Harlem, through an organization called Harlem Children's Zone. Geoffrey Canada began Harlem Children's Zone as a single-block pilot in the 1990s, which has since expanded to 96 blocks. Today Harlem Children's Zone operates two charter schools and leverages a wide range of public, nonprofit, and philanthropic resources to provide wrap-around services to over 10,000 youth and about the same number of adults each year. Harlem Children's Zone's programs have equipped children with the skills needed to be successful in elementary school and have provided families with the tools needed to effectively support their children's development and academic achievement. The New York Times has called it ``one of the most ambitious social-service experiments of our time''. The bill I am introducing today builds on this outstanding framework. This Promise Neighborhoods proposal would fund competitive grants to implement cradle-to-career ``continuums of care'' similar to Harlem Children's Zone for children in distressed neighborhoods. Promise Neighborhoods encourages communities and schools to leverage partnerships that provide children with access to evidence-based education reforms, community services, and family supports that improve academic, developmental, career, and life outcomes. This bill focuses on ensuring the provision of high-quality early learning programs, effective family and community engagement strategies, and better services for special populations, such as children with disabilities and English learners. It also allows for grants that are led by community-based organizations working in partnership with school districts, or led by schools in partnership with community-based organizations or institutions of higher education. Partners must collaborate to develop and implement a high-quality, evidence-based pipeline of services. This pipeline, at a minimum, must support social and emotional development beginning at birth, enhance academic achievement, and prepare students for success in college and 21st century careers. Promise Neighborhoods is a new kind of Federal grant. It requires organizations, agencies, and caring adults to work together to revitalize a single neighborhood, focusing on access to the educational and other supports children need to be successful in school and in life. It also supports communities in working together to combat the devastating effects poverty has on children's development and academic achievement. One day I would hope that all children grow up in a neighborhood that provides support for their success from birth. This bill will help us take an important step towards this vision.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in many of our Nation's poorest communities, children and families do not have access to the educational opportunities that enable youth to start school ready to learn and graduate from secondary school ready to succeed in college and the workforce, achieve economic self-sufficiency, and support families of their own someday. As chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, it is my responsibility to lead the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which affords an exciting opportunity to improve the quality of elementary and secondary education for our children and youth. Our Nation's future economic strength and national security require well-educated workers who are not only academically prepared, but also healthy, understand the importance of community and civic participation, and possess the skills needed to successfully compete in the 21st century global economy. To accomplish these goals, children and youth must have access to a great education and safe and supportive community, beginning at birth. However, in too many communities the consequences of poverty limit the chances students have to obtain a solid academic foundation that leads to college and career success. That is why we need Promise Neighborhoods. Promise Neighborhood partnerships leverage community assets to significantly improve academic outcomes, including school readiness, high school graduation and college entry and completion. Promise Neighborhood partners use data-driven decisionmaking to guide investments in a community-based continuum of high-quality services and evidence-based practices that address the needs of children, from birth through college and career entry. The reauthorization of ESEA provides us with an opportunity to build upon the successes of Promise Neighborhoods, of which there are more than 40 across the country, to ensure that children and youth have access to good schools, integrated students supports and other wrap-around services needed to ensure academic, as well as social and emotional, growth and development. The lack of supports for families and children in distressed neighborhoods has a profound impact on student achievement and development. Children from poor families are less likely to have access to nutritious foods, high-quality early learning programs, adults who read to them every day, and basic health care. As a result, these children are more likely to experience sickness and developmental delays, chronic hunger and homelessness, and abuse and neglect--all of which contribute to slow brain development and low academic achievement. Children from low-income families enter kindergarten approximately three months behind the national average in reading and enter first grade with 900 hours less of one-on-one book-reading time than do their middle-class peers. The number of poor children facing these challenges and experiencing these devastating results is growing at an alarming rate. According to the National Center for Children and Poverty, the number of poor children under age 6 increased by 24 percent between 2000 and 2007. The center also found that in my home State of Iowa, 20 percent of children under age 6 live in poor families. Between 2007 and 2009, the number of children living in poverty nationwide grew by 2.2 million, to 15.5 million. This means that more of our Nation's children are starting school ill-equipped to thrive and gain the skills needed for success in the 21st century. The best way to combat this trend is to ensure that all children, especially those in low-income and under-resourced communities, have access to high-quality early learning programs, effective schools, and family and student supports that prepare them for success. One low-income neighborhood where children and their families receive these essential programs and supports is in Harlem, through an organization called Harlem Children's Zone. Geoffrey Canada began Harlem Children's Zone as a single-block pilot in the 1990s, which has since expanded to 96 blocks. Today Harlem Children's Zone operates two charter schools and leverages a wide range of public, nonprofit, and philanthropic resources to provide wrap-around services to over 10,000 youth and about the same number of adults each year. Harlem Children's Zone's programs have equipped children with the skills needed to be successful in elementary school and have provided families with the tools needed to effectively support their children's development and academic achievement. The New York Times has called it ``one of the most ambitious social-service experiments of our time''. The bill I am introducing today builds on this outstanding framework. This Promise Neighborhoods proposal would fund competitive grants to implement cradle-to-career ``continuums of care'' similar to Harlem Children's Zone for children in distressed neighborhoods. Promise Neighborhoods encourages communities and schools to leverage partnerships that provide children with access to evidence-based education reforms, community services, and family supports that improve academic, developmental, career, and life outcomes. This bill focuses on ensuring the provision of high-quality early learning programs, effective family and community engagement strategies, and better services for special populations, such as children with disabilities and English learners. It also allows for grants that are led by community-based organizations working in partnership with school districts, or led by schools in partnership with community-based organizations or institutions of higher education. Partners must collaborate to develop and implement a high-quality, evidence-based pipeline of services. This pipeline, at a minimum, must support social and emotional development beginning at birth, enhance academic achievement, and prepare students for success in college and 21st century careers. Promise Neighborhoods is a new kind of Federal grant. It requires organizations, agencies, and caring adults to work together to revitalize a single neighborhood, focusing on access to the educational and other supports children need to be successful in school and in life. It also supports communities in working together to combat the devastating effects poverty has on children's development and academic achievement. One day I would hope that all children grow up in a neighborhood that provides support for their success from birth. This bill will help us take an important step towards this vision.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, last weekend we observed Mother's Day and celebrated our families. When we reflect on our own mothers, many of us think about the woman who nursed us when we were sick, took us to the doctor for checkups, and cared for our grandparents as they aged, while at the same time working to put food on the table. These balancing acts are hard enough. But for many moms, and dads, across the country, juggling all these roles means making impossible choices. This is especially true for people who do not have the basic right of paid sick days. For these workers, missing work due to an illness, injury, or doctor's appointment can mean putting their job and their family's financial security in jeopardy. So they are forced to choose between the jobs they need and the families they love. In these difficult economic times, no one should have to make that choice. But for a huge segment of the American workforce, these difficult choices are a daily reality. Four in ten U.S. workers have no paid sick days, they cannot miss a day of work with the guarantee of their pay or the assurance that their job will be there when they come back. What is more, 2/3 of low-wage workers, those who can least afford to lose a paycheck or a job, have no paid sick days. This means many of these workers report to work sick or send their children to school or day care sick, spreading their illness to others. This robs workers of their basic dignity, and that shouldn't happen in a country as wealthy and successful as America. In fact, the U.S. is the only developed country that does not guarantee paid sick days to its workers, and our workers are the most productive in the world! America's workers deserve to earn a decent living; a living where they can provide for their families without being punished when they or their children catch the flu. America's workers deserve paid sick days. Lack of access to paid sick days isn't just a crisis for individual families--it's a public health crisis as well. Health officials urge people with contagious illnesses to stay home from work to avoid spreading disease. But the workers in industries with the most contact with the public, such as food service and hospitality, are the least likely to have paid sick days. A recent survey shows that nearly two- thirds of restaurant workers, 3/4 of whom don't have paid sick days, report cooking or serving food while sick. This puts the health of all of us in jeopardy. And not having paid sick days puts these workers in the terrible position of choosing between the health of their customers and their family's health and economic security. But this doesn't have to be the case. We can give working people the tools they need to protect their health and their families' health while also safeguarding the public health. Workers want to do the right thing and stay home when they are ill or stay home with their sick children rather than sending them to school. But our current laws simply do not protect them. This is why Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro and I are introducing the Healthy Families Act, which will allow U.S. workers to earn up to 7 paid sick days per year to recover from short-term illness, care for a sick family member, seek routine medical care, or seek help if they are victims of domestic violence. This important legislation will provide much-needed security for hardworking families struggling to balance the obligations of work and family. It will improve public health and decrease health costs by preventing the spread of disease and giving employees the access they need to obtain preventive care and treatment. It will also help victims of domestic violence to protect their families and their futures. Providing paid sick days to workers will be good for working people and their families, and good for our businesses and our economy as well. Allowing workers to tend to their health or their families' engenders good will and loyalty, and boosts morale at the workplace. Businesses will save because the greatest cause of lost productivity due to illness is not absenteeism but ``presenteeism,'' the practice of sick workers coming to work, infecting their colleagues, and being less productive themselves. Businesses whose workers have paid sick days will also benefit from reduced turnover, and its high associated costs, when workers can hold on to their jobs. Experience bears this out, in San Francisco, where workers have had guaranteed paid sick days since 2007, surveys show that 6 out of 7 employers found no negative effect on profit. Indeed, 4 years after implementation, two-thirds of surveyed employers were supportive of the city's paid sick days law. The overall economy will benefit from reduced health costs as well. Ensuring that workers are able to seek preventive care as well as care in a doctor's office, rather than the ER, will minimize health care costs. Reducing the spread of contagious illnesses by allowing workers or children to stay at home where they won't infect their coworkers or classmates will also reduce health costs by keeping more people healthy in the first place. Most of all, workers will have peace of mind and financial security. They won't be faced with a potentially long search for new work, while collecting unemployment benefits. They won't face reduced income and having to cut back on their spending on food, medicine, and other necessities bought in their local communities. Working people will have the security of knowing that if illness strikes, they will be able to tend to their families without losing their jobs or their paychecks. The Healthy Families Act has had the strongest of Senate champions who have led the fight for workers' rights, Senator Kennedy and Senator Dodd. I am proud to be the new leader for this vital piece of legislation. I thank my colleagues who are joining me today as original cosponsors, and I encourage all Senators to join us in supporting the Healthy Families Act. This bill will provide health, peace of mind, and security for America's workers and their families. At a time when the American Dream and the middle class seem to be slipping away, these goals could never be more important. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, last weekend we observed Mother's Day and celebrated our families. When we reflect on our own mothers, many of us think about the woman who nursed us when we were sick, took us to the doctor for checkups, and cared for our grandparents as they aged, while at the same time working to put food on the table. These balancing acts are hard enough. But for many moms, and dads, across the country, juggling all these roles means making impossible choices. This is especially true for people who do not have the basic right of paid sick days. For these workers, missing work due to an illness, injury, or doctor's appointment can mean putting their job and their family's financial security in jeopardy. So they are forced to choose between the jobs they need and the families they love. In these difficult economic times, no one should have to make that choice. But for a huge segment of the American workforce, these difficult choices are a daily reality. Four in ten U.S. workers have no paid sick days, they cannot miss a day of work with the guarantee of their pay or the assurance that their job will be there when they come back. What is more, 2/3 of low-wage workers, those who can least afford to lose a paycheck or a job, have no paid sick days. This means many of these workers report to work sick or send their children to school or day care sick, spreading their illness to others. This robs workers of their basic dignity, and that shouldn't happen in a country as wealthy and successful as America. In fact, the U.S. is the only developed country that does not guarantee paid sick days to its workers, and our workers are the most productive in the world! America's workers deserve to earn a decent living; a living where they can provide for their families without being punished when they or their children catch the flu. America's workers deserve paid sick days. Lack of access to paid sick days isn't just a crisis for individual families--it's a public health crisis as well. Health officials urge people with contagious illnesses to stay home from work to avoid spreading disease. But the workers in industries with the most contact with the public, such as food service and hospitality, are the least likely to have paid sick days. A recent survey shows that nearly two- thirds of restaurant workers, 3/4 of whom don't have paid sick days, report cooking or serving food while sick. This puts the health of all of us in jeopardy. And not having paid sick days puts these workers in the terrible position of choosing between the health of their customers and their family's health and economic security. But this doesn't have to be the case. We can give working people the tools they need to protect their health and their families' health while also safeguarding the public health. Workers want to do the right thing and stay home when they are ill or stay home with their sick children rather than sending them to school. But our current laws simply do not protect them. This is why Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro and I are introducing the Healthy Families Act, which will allow U.S. workers to earn up to 7 paid sick days per year to recover from short-term illness, care for a sick family member, seek routine medical care, or seek help if they are victims of domestic violence. This important legislation will provide much-needed security for hardworking families struggling to balance the obligations of work and family. It will improve public health and decrease health costs by preventing the spread of disease and giving employees the access they need to obtain preventive care and treatment. It will also help victims of domestic violence to protect their families and their futures. Providing paid sick days to workers will be good for working people and their families, and good for our businesses and our economy as well. Allowing workers to tend to their health or their families' engenders good will and loyalty, and boosts morale at the workplace. Businesses will save because the greatest cause of lost productivity due to illness is not absenteeism but ``presenteeism,'' the practice of sick workers coming to work, infecting their colleagues, and being less productive themselves. Businesses whose workers have paid sick days will also benefit from reduced turnover, and its high associated costs, when workers can hold on to their jobs. Experience bears this out, in San Francisco, where workers have had guaranteed paid sick days since 2007, surveys show that 6 out of 7 employers found no negative effect on profit. Indeed, 4 years after implementation, two-thirds of surveyed employers were supportive of the city's paid sick days law. The overall economy will benefit from reduced health costs as well. Ensuring that workers are able to seek preventive care as well as care in a doctor's office, rather than the ER, will minimize health care costs. Reducing the spread of contagious illnesses by allowing workers or children to stay at home where they won't infect their coworkers or classmates will also reduce health costs by keeping more people healthy in the first place. Most of all, workers will have peace of mind and financial security. They won't be faced with a potentially long search for new work, while collecting unemployment benefits. They won't face reduced income and having to cut back on their spending on food, medicine, and other necessities bought in their local communities. Working people will have the security of knowing that if illness strikes, they will be able to tend to their families without losing their jobs or their paychecks. The Healthy Families Act has had the strongest of Senate champions who have led the fight for workers' rights, Senator Kennedy and Senator Dodd. I am proud to be the new leader for this vital piece of legislation. I thank my colleagues who are joining me today as original cosponsors, and I encourage all Senators to join us in supporting the Healthy Families Act. This bill will provide health, peace of mind, and security for America's workers and their families. At a time when the American Dream and the middle class seem to be slipping away, these goals could never be more important. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 11, 2011, at 10 a.m., to hold a Near Eastern and South and Central Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``Human Rights and Democratic Reform in Iran.''

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 11, 2011, at 10:15 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The AT&T/T-Mobile Merger: Is Humpty Dumpty Being Put Back Together Again?''

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 11, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 11, 2011, at 2 p.m.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 11, 2011, at 1:30 p.m.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 11, 2011, at 2 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 11, 2011, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement.''

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Diverting Non-urgent Emergency Room Use: Can It Provide Better Care and Lower Costs?'' on May 11, 2011, at 10 a.m., in 430 Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 11, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 11, 2011, at 2 p.m.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, recently the National Labor Relations Board general counsel issued a complaint against the Boeing Company alleging that the company had violated the National Labor Relations Act. This routine administrative procedure has set off what I call a melodramatic outcry from Boeing, the business community, the editorial writers of the Wall Street Journal, the National Chamber of Commerce, and, of course, our friends on the Republican side of the aisle. A headline in the Wall Street Journal editorial page calls it: ``The death of right to work.'' South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley declared that it was ``government dictated economic larceny.'' At a press conference held at the Chamber of Commerce yesterday morning, Senator DeMint from South Carolina referred to it as ``thuggery.'' The senior Senator from Utah warned that foot soldiers of a vast and permanent bureaucracy were trying to implement a ``leftist agenda.'' One would think this one decision by an administrative arm of an independent agency was surely going to bring about the death of capitalism in the world today. This has taken on incredible proportions in terms of the outcry and the mischaracterization of what has happened. Instead of talking about how we get Americans working again, get the middle class on its feet, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are taking their time on the Senate floor and in press conferences downtown attacking the handling of a routine affair--an unfair labor practice charge. I do not think it is worth the time of the Senate to debate this issue. However, because of this huge outcry and the fact that the Wall Street Journal has chosen to editorialize on this issue and because of the disturbing misinformation that has distorted public discussion of this case, I am going to take some time on the Senate floor to try to, as they say, set the record straight. I have said before this Boeing case is a classic example of the old saying that a lie is halfway around the world before the truth laces up its boots. I would say, in this case, Senate information travels even faster than that. So it is time to set the record straight. Here are the facts in the case. It is undisputed Boeing recently decided to locate a production facility for the new Dreamliner planes in South Carolina. They decided to do that. Many statements were made by executives of Boeing, publicly stated, that the decision to move there was based in whole or in large part on the fact that there had been work stoppages, strikes in the last few years at the Boeing plant in Everett, WA. The NLRB's complaint alleges that this decision was unlawful retaliation against the Boeing workers in Washington State. This has been put into a political context, but let's again be clear about how this happens. The National Labor Relations Board is an independent agency set up under the Wagner Act 75 years ago. There are two branches of the NLRB. One is the Board, the NLRB, the national board. It is a five-member board appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. On the other hand, there are the career service people, outside of the General Counsel, the civil servants who are not appointed. They are nonpolitical. They carry out the day-to-day functions of the National Labor Relations Act. If I may say, it is similar to the Food and Drug Administration. The Food and Drug Administration has an Administrator appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, as do a lot of other independent agencies. But then there is a civil service side of it that is professional--professional people not appointed by the President. They have career civil service status. The general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board is appointed, but the rest of the staff in the area of the career civil service. The acting general counsel now has been a civil servant for 30 years. What happens is, a business or a union--it does not have to be them; it can be anybody--can file a complaint with the NLRB, alleging that certain actions were in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. One of the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act says it is unlawful for a company to retaliate against workers for a protected activity conducted by those workers--protected activity. One of the protected activities under the National Labor Relations Act is, of course, the right to organize, the right to join a union, and, of course, under the Taft-Hartley bill, some years later, the right not to join a union if you do not want to, so-called right-to- work States. The protected activity in this case is the right to strike. The National Labor Relations Act protects that activity. Organized workers in a union have the right to strike. It is a protected activity. A company cannot retaliate against workers for exercising that right. So if--if, I say ``if''--if the Boeing Company did, in fact, move a production line to another State in retaliation against the workers who exercised their right to strike in Washington, that would be illegal for Boeing to do that--unlawful. I said ``if'' because I am not here taking a side in the case. I am not certain where the truth lies. This is for the trier of fact and the trier of law. When a complaint such as this comes to the National Labor Relations Board, they investigate it. The National Labor Relations Board investigated, under the general counsel's office, the civil service part. They did an investigation. They took affidavits. They talked with people to find out whether there was any cause to move forward. Again, whether it is right or wrong, I do not know, but this independent civil servants decided there was enough evidence for them to warrant taking this case to an administrative law judge. That is the process. Boeing then can make its case before the administrative law judge. The general counsel's office can make its case. The administrative law judge then makes a decision. As I understand it, the administrative law judge can find for the general counsel, it can uphold their theory or it can modify it. After that is done, either side can appeal it. That appeal then goes from the civil service part over to the National Labor Relations Board. After the Board then reviews it, they make a decision. They either uphold what the administrative law judge said or they do not uphold it. From there, either side can appeal to the circuit court of appeals, and from the circuit court of appeals, they can appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. That is the process. That process has been followed now for 75 years. We follow similar processes in other independent agencies of the Federal Government. I mentioned the Federal Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Trade Commission. A lot of other independent boards and agencies have that same process. What has happened now is, many of our friends on the Republican side and in the business community have now taken up the hue and cry that this process should be interfered with, that this process should somehow be stopped politically. I do not think it is our right, our job here to interfere in something such as that politically. If my friends on the Republican side do not like the provision of the National Labor Relations Act which says it is illegal to take retaliation against workers for protected activity, if my friends on the Republican side want to change that law, offer a bill, offer an amendment. That law can be changed. With both bodies--the House and the Senate--and the President signing it, we can change it. But it is wrong for, I believe, elected officials, such as myself or anyone else, to interfere in that process and to cast it as a political decision. But that is what is being done by so many Republican Senators and people in the business community. They have alleged that President Obama was behind this, that somehow because he has appointed a couple members of the National Labor Relations Board that he is behind this issue. President Obama had nothing to do with it. This was a complaint filed by the Machinists Union, the International Association of Machinists, with the NLRB. President Obama has nothing to do with this whatsoever, and he should not have anything to do with it. But, again, people on the Republican side are alleging--again, misinformation, misinformation, misinformation going out--that somehow this is being orchestrated out of the White House. Again the facts: The facts are there was a complaint filed. The National Labor Relations Board is doing exactly what they have done for the last 75 years. It is going to go before an administrative law judge and then find out how it works its way through the courts at that time. I would ask my friends on the Republican side, if in, fact--if, in fact--the Boeing Company did retaliate against workers because of a protected activity, do my friends on the Republican side say that should be OK? Is that what they are saying; that if workers exercise a legally protected right and a company retaliates against those workers anyway they ought to be able to do that? I can take all kinds of cases. Let's say a company decides to move a plant from Southern California to, let's just say Fargo, ND, and the reason they state they moved it was because there were too many Hispanics working in their plant in Southern California and they didn't like that. They wanted to move it to Fargo, ND, because there are not that many Hispanics there. Guess what, folks. That is illegal. That is illegal. Do my friends on the Republican side say they ought to be able to do that in violation of all our civil rights laws in this country? Of course not. People say: Of course, they can't make that kind of decision based on that. They can't make a decision to move a plant where there are more men than women so they won't have to hire more women; or less African Americans so they don't have to hire more African Americans. We can carry this on and on. So I hope my friends on the Republican side are not saying a company can retaliate and then just walk away without any penalties, without even any recourse by the workers to have their cases heard. That is what I am here defending. I am defending the rights of the workers in the plant in Everett, WA, to have their complaints heard. Now, I don't know the facts. I know a little of the law, but I don't know the facts. That is for the trier. That is for the administrative law judge and the NLRB and the appeals court and the Supreme Court. That is their jurisdiction. But for us to say it shouldn't even go there; that these workers can't even bring a case--and I might add, there are a lot of cases that are filed with the NLRB that don't go there because the NLRB investigates; they do their due diligence; and they find out there is not even enough evidence to warrant going forward. So all I can assume is here there was enough evidence to warrant going forward. Whether there is enough to actually find that Boeing did retaliate, again, I don't know. That is up to the trier of fact--the administrative law judge. But I am hearing from these dramatic outcries that somehow we are destroying the right to work. This case has nothing to do with right to work--nothing--zero. It has nothing to do with right-to-work laws. This case has nothing to do with the outcry that somehow this is destroying the essence of a business to be able to decide, in its best economic interest, where to locate. If Boeing wants to open their plant in Timbuktu, they can do that. If they want to open a plant in South Carolina, they can do that. What they can't do is open a plant someplace in retaliation against the workers exercising their legally protected rights; that, they can't do. Now, again, this is an evidentiary-type hearing. So the evidence will have to come forward as to just what decisions were made, why they were made. Quite frankly, there are executives of Boeing who have publicly stated--publicly--that one of the reasons they moved was because of the work stoppages at the Everett plant--work stoppages, strikes. Is that enough evidence? I don't know. Maybe it is enough evidence to warrant going forward. Obviously, the general counsel's office decided there was. I would also point out, Mr. President, the general counsel's office in cases such as this works long and hard to try to settle the case--to get both sides to settle. I know the general counsel's office in this case did try to do that, but they were unsuccessful; therefore, the case goes forward. So I want to point out again--just to reiterate, Mr. President--this is not about doing away with the right-to-work laws. It has nothing to do with that. It has nothing to do with interfering with businesses' making decisions on where to locate their plants or anything such as that. It has nothing to do with that. It has nothing to do with destroying capitalism. It has to do with whether workers have a right-- first of all, can they exercise their legally protected rights, and then can they make a case to the NLRB they were retaliated against because they exercised their legal rights. That is what this case is about. That is what this case is about. Again, I understand the desire of certain people to raise money for political campaigns. I understand that. I understand how one might exaggerate things a lot of times in direct mail and in the press. I am sure there will be a lot of businesses that will hear: You have to contribute to this campaign or that campaign to stop President Obama or to stop the National Labor Relations Board from taking your business decisions away from you. Well, that is misinformation. I know it can be used to raise a lot of campaign money, but it is not right. It is not right to deceive and to misinform the American people about a basic right that protects middle- class workers in America. Americans understand fairness, and they resent it when the wealthy and the powerful manipulate the political system to reap huge advantages at the expense of working people. I think I have always been a pretty good friend of the Boeing Company. I have been a big supporter of Boeing in so many things, going back in my 30 years in the Congress. It is a great company. They provide a lot of great jobs for American workers. They build great airplanes--better than Airbus, I might say. But it is wrong for them now to come in and try to get the political system to undo a legal administrative procedure the workers at that Boeing plant have instigated and have asked for the NLRB to investigate and to charge Boeing with retaliation. What is happening in this case is that the powerful and the big are trying to manipulate the political system. Powerful corporate interests are pressuring Members of this body to interfere with an independent agency rather than letting it run its course. We should not tolerate this interference. We should turn our attention to the issues that matter to American families--how we can create jobs in Washington, and, yes, in South Carolina, in Iowa, and across the country; how we can rebuild the middle class, how we can ensure that working hard and playing by the rules will help rebuild a better life for families and for their children. Playing by the rules is what the workers did. They played by the rules. They exercised their legal rights, and now there is a complaint filed. I say it is wrong for us to interfere in that. Again, if we don't like the law, if we don't like the administrative procedures that undergird this, it can be changed. It can be changed. But I daresay we have had 75 years of the Wagner Act--of this process, and I will close on this: Sometimes businesses file a complaint with the NLRB against a union activity, and that is investigated. That goes before administrative law judges, too. So both sides use this. I think it is unbecoming for us now to try to turn this into some kind of a political maelstrom, a political tornado, when it shouldn't be that. Let's let the law and let's let the administrative procedure do its job. Then, if corrective action needs to be taken, then it is the purview of Congress to deal with it at that time. Not now. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, one of our greatest national priorities is ensuring that all students in all schools are in settings that are safe; classrooms that support learning; situations that ensure our children will be successful. To be a successful student, to be a contributing citizen to our democracy, to be prepared for college and the workforce of tomorrow, our students need to be of sound mind, of sound body, and have access to resources that will support their success. Students who travel to school safely; who attend classes in structurally sound buildings where the adults model positive teamwork and collaboration skills; where good nutrition is available and where opportunities for physical activity are available and expected; where they have a safe, supportive social environment, students who have all of these conditions in their schools will be prepared to achieve high academic standards. In a country where almost one in every five children is obese, where thousands of students are bullied and harassed daily, and where access to high-quality mental and physical health care is limited, students must have these basic conditions for learning in order to be successful. While the Department of Justice reports that the rate of serious incidents of school violence continue to decline, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, bullying remains a pervasive problem that affects almost one in four students each year. As we have seen in recent times, sometimes bullying results in the worst possible tragedy, the death of a child. Fifteen-year-old Phoebe Prince, a freshman at South Hadley High School in Massachusetts, endured nearly three months of routine torment by classmates. On January 14, 2010, Phoebe hanged herself in the stairwell of her family's home, following weeks of taunting by classmates. The day before she died, she told a friend: ``School has been close to intolerable lately.'' In California, thirteen-year-old Seth Walsh committed suicide this past October because of the bullying he experienced in his school. We need to have the expectations in all of our schools that all students will be valued and all students will have a safe haven to learn and achieve. In New York City, middle schooler Gurwinder Singh was targeted by bullies who bashed his head into a metal pole while bystanders watched, because of his Sikh religion. Luckily, Gurwinder survived, and has become an outspoken proponent of bullying prevention. We cannot stand idly by when school becomes a hostile place for kids. Thus, today, I am introducing the Successful, Safe and Healthy Students Act. This legislation will advance student achievement and promote the positive physical, mental, and emotional health of students throughout the nation. It will help to reduce violence in schools, prevent bullying and harassment, help students make responsible choices about drugs, tobacco, and alcohol, and create the type of school environments where students can do their best work and achieve the highest possible academic outcomes, while also becoming healthy, happy and productive members of their communities. Essential conditions for learning include schools that provide for adequate physical activity, positive mental health, and safe environments. Those conditions include physical and emotional safety for both students and school personnel and promote positive character development in our youth. Schools with the essential conditions for learning also provide for opportunities for good nutrition and healthy living, and are free of violence, harassment, bullying and other forms of interpersonal aggression. Schools that have the right conditions for learning are free of weapons and prevent the use and abuse of drugs and alcohol. And schools with good conditions for learning have positive adult role models with high expectations for students' development, conduct, and academic achievement. For those who might be skeptical about these critical conditions for learning, we only need to look to the States and their efforts to improve school performance and accountability. Many States are moving beyond the limited measures of school performance required by No Child Left Behind and have started to collect data on school-wide factors that are associated with student success. Some of these areas include school climate, physical activity of students, and physical and emotional safety. In fact, a March 2011 report from the RAND Corporation indicated that many States are now establishing accountability systems that include school safety, school climate, family involvement, and student engagement. This legislation will provide to each State the support necessary to measure the conditions for learning in each school in each school in the State. Resources will also be available to offer grants to school districts to establish policies and activities to improve the conditions for learning in each of their schools. This legislation gives State and local school districts the resources and opportunities to create safe, healthy schools that will enhance the academic achievement of students. This legislation is an essential tool for our States and local schools to support students who are prepared for college, a career, and to be world-class citizens. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, one of our greatest national priorities is ensuring that all students in all schools are in settings that are safe; classrooms that support learning; situations that ensure our children will be successful. To be a successful student, to be a contributing citizen to our democracy, to be prepared for college and the workforce of tomorrow, our students need to be of sound mind, of sound body, and have access to resources that will support their success. Students who travel to school safely; who attend classes in structurally sound buildings where the adults model positive teamwork and collaboration skills; where good nutrition is available and where opportunities for physical activity are available and expected; where they have a safe, supportive social environment, students who have all of these conditions in their schools will be prepared to achieve high academic standards. In a country where almost one in every five children is obese, where thousands of students are bullied and harassed daily, and where access to high-quality mental and physical health care is limited, students must have these basic conditions for learning in order to be successful. While the Department of Justice reports that the rate of serious incidents of school violence continue to decline, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, bullying remains a pervasive problem that affects almost one in four students each year. As we have seen in recent times, sometimes bullying results in the worst possible tragedy, the death of a child. Fifteen-year-old Phoebe Prince, a freshman at South Hadley High School in Massachusetts, endured nearly three months of routine torment by classmates. On January 14, 2010, Phoebe hanged herself in the stairwell of her family's home, following weeks of taunting by classmates. The day before she died, she told a friend: ``School has been close to intolerable lately.'' In California, thirteen-year-old Seth Walsh committed suicide this past October because of the bullying he experienced in his school. We need to have the expectations in all of our schools that all students will be valued and all students will have a safe haven to learn and achieve. In New York City, middle schooler Gurwinder Singh was targeted by bullies who bashed his head into a metal pole while bystanders watched, because of his Sikh religion. Luckily, Gurwinder survived, and has become an outspoken proponent of bullying prevention. We cannot stand idly by when school becomes a hostile place for kids. Thus, today, I am introducing the Successful, Safe and Healthy Students Act. This legislation will advance student achievement and promote the positive physical, mental, and emotional health of students throughout the nation. It will help to reduce violence in schools, prevent bullying and harassment, help students make responsible choices about drugs, tobacco, and alcohol, and create the type of school environments where students can do their best work and achieve the highest possible academic outcomes, while also becoming healthy, happy and productive members of their communities. Essential conditions for learning include schools that provide for adequate physical activity, positive mental health, and safe environments. Those conditions include physical and emotional safety for both students and school personnel and promote positive character development in our youth. Schools with the essential conditions for learning also provide for opportunities for good nutrition and healthy living, and are free of violence, harassment, bullying and other forms of interpersonal aggression. Schools that have the right conditions for learning are free of weapons and prevent the use and abuse of drugs and alcohol. And schools with good conditions for learning have positive adult role models with high expectations for students' development, conduct, and academic achievement. For those who might be skeptical about these critical conditions for learning, we only need to look to the States and their efforts to improve school performance and accountability. Many States are moving beyond the limited measures of school performance required by No Child Left Behind and have started to collect data on school-wide factors that are associated with student success. Some of these areas include school climate, physical activity of students, and physical and emotional safety. In fact, a March 2011 report from the RAND Corporation indicated that many States are now establishing accountability systems that include school safety, school climate, family involvement, and student engagement. This legislation will provide to each State the support necessary to measure the conditions for learning in each school in each school in the State. Resources will also be available to offer grants to school districts to establish policies and activities to improve the conditions for learning in each of their schools. This legislation gives State and local school districts the resources and opportunities to create safe, healthy schools that will enhance the academic achievement of students. This legislation is an essential tool for our States and local schools to support students who are prepared for college, a career, and to be world-class citizens. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, safe, modern, healthy school buildings are essential to creating an environment where students can reach their full academic potential. Today, too many students in the United States, particularly those most at risk of being left behind, attend school in facilities that are old, overcrowded and run-down. The 2009 Infrastructure Report Card compiled by the American Society of Civil Engineers gives public schools a D grade. Too many of our Nation's schools were built over a half century ago, and are not equipped to meet the needs of 21st Century students and teachers. School-facility needs are impacting the preparedness of our children for work in critical fields, such as mathematics and science. The National Center for Education Statistics reported in 2000 that the Nation's elementary and secondary schools required approximately $127 billion to repair or upgrade their facilities. A 2008 State-by-State analysis by the American Federation of Teachers found that the Nation's school infrastructure needs total an estimated $255 billion. While the condition of public school buildings is primarily a state and local responsibility, the Federal Government can and should help, especially when it comes to closing disparities between affluent and disadvantaged school districts. The current economic environment makes it exceedingly difficult for States and school districts to renovate and in some cases build new schools to meet this important need. That is why I am pleased to introduce the School Building Fairness Act. This legislation provides $1 billion to States for competitive matching grants to local educational agencies; LEAs, for school repair, renovation, and construction. In awarding the grants, States must consider poverty, condition of school facilities, capacity, adherence to green building standards, and likelihood of maintenance. I have seen this work in Iowa with the success of the Iowa Demonstration Construction Grant Program, which provided over $121 million in federal assistance to over 300 school districts and leveraged more than $600 million of additional local funding through the matching requirement. I am sure that it will work across the rest of the country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, safe, modern, healthy school buildings are essential to creating an environment where students can reach their full academic potential. Today, too many students in the United States, particularly those most at risk of being left behind, attend school in facilities that are old, overcrowded and run-down. The 2009 Infrastructure Report Card compiled by the American Society of Civil Engineers gives public schools a D grade. Too many of our Nation's schools were built over a half century ago, and are not equipped to meet the needs of 21st Century students and teachers. School-facility needs are impacting the preparedness of our children for work in critical fields, such as mathematics and science. The National Center for Education Statistics reported in 2000 that the Nation's elementary and secondary schools required approximately $127 billion to repair or upgrade their facilities. A 2008 State-by-State analysis by the American Federation of Teachers found that the Nation's school infrastructure needs total an estimated $255 billion. While the condition of public school buildings is primarily a state and local responsibility, the Federal Government can and should help, especially when it comes to closing disparities between affluent and disadvantaged school districts. The current economic environment makes it exceedingly difficult for States and school districts to renovate and in some cases build new schools to meet this important need. That is why I am pleased to introduce the School Building Fairness Act. This legislation provides $1 billion to States for competitive matching grants to local educational agencies; LEAs, for school repair, renovation, and construction. In awarding the grants, States must consider poverty, condition of school facilities, capacity, adherence to green building standards, and likelihood of maintenance. I have seen this work in Iowa with the success of the Iowa Demonstration Construction Grant Program, which provided over $121 million in federal assistance to over 300 school districts and leveraged more than $600 million of additional local funding through the matching requirement. I am sure that it will work across the rest of the country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, everyone in this body agrees that we must take aggressive action to reduce the deficit, but we have to do it right. Frankly, the best way to bring down the deficit is to help 15 million unemployed Americans get good middle-class jobs again. Those hard-working Americans would be delighted to be on the tax rolls and to be taxpayers once again. But, regrettably, the tea party budget passed by the House Republicans last month takes us in the opposite direction--it would weaken our economy and destroy jobs. I have spoken previously on the Senate floor about the grave flaws in the Republican budget. But beyond the misguided priorities in that budget, I object to its premise. The premise of the tea party Republican budget coming over from the House is that America is poor and broke and we can no longer afford the investments that make possible a strong middle-class and world-class economy. Indeed, some House Republicans take the radical view that government has no business investing in the middle class, period. I emphatically reject the defeatist premise of this Republican budget. The United States of America is a wealthy Nation--the wealthiest Nation in world history. The problem is how that wealth has been shared or not shared among the American people, with income inequality that is the highest among developed countries. Let me repeat that. Right now, income inequality in America is the highest among developed countries. So the problem is how our wealth has been invested or misinvested, with trillions of dollars squandered by money manipulators on Wall Street or funneled to those at the top through tax cuts. Unfortunately, the tea party budget, authored by Congressman Ryan, would make these problems far worse. It lavishes yet more tax cuts on corporations and the wealthy even as it slashes investments that undergird the middle class in this country--everything from education funding to Medicare and Medicaid. Let me state the obvious: If working people in the middle class are going to take a hit in tough times, it shouldn't be to take a hit to pay for tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. Let's look at some of the particulars in this so-called deficit reduction plan of the House Republicans. For starters, never before have I heard of a deficit reduction plan that begins by demanding trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, largely for corporations and the wealthy. In addition to allowing the very wealthy to keep all of the benefits of the Bush-era tax cuts and to keep them permanently, the Republican budget would cut the top tax rate from 35 percent down to 25 percent. Let's again state the obvious: This doesn't reduce the deficit; it digs the deficit hole much deeper. Next, the Republican budget dismantles Medicare and Medicaid and lays the groundwork for deep cuts to Social Security--changes that will devastate the economic security of the middle class in this country. The Republican budget says we cannot cut one additional dime from the Pentagon budget because I guess to them there is no waste in the Pentagon, there are no unnecessary weapon systems, no troops based in Japan or Europe or elsewhere who could be brought home. Meanwhile, this tea party Republican budget slashes Federal investments in everything from education to infrastructure to law enforcement back to the levels of the 1920s. Again, let me repeat that. It slashes Federal investments in everything from education to infrastructure to law enforcement back to the levels of the 1920s. It also repeals Wall Street reform that we passed here, as well as the consumer protections in the affordable care act, including the ban on denying coverage for preexisting conditions. What has that got to do with the deficit? Their budget cuts funding for food safety, workplace safety, environmental protection, and guts the commonsense regulation of corporate America. It tells Wall Street bankers and speculators, health insurance companies, credit card companies, and mortgage lenders: You are free to go back to the reckless abusive practices of the past. We will just trust you to do what is right for the American people. To appreciate just how extreme and ideological this budget is, look more closely at the blueprint for replacing Medicare with a voucher system. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2030, future seniors would have to pay two-thirds of the cost of their private health insurance. Their out-of-pocket costs would average in excess of $12,000 per person, per year--more than double the current cost to seniors. Yet this would pay for private plans that would provide only half of current Medicare coverage. How many seniors can afford to pay $12,000 annually out of pocket for health insurance that only gives them half the coverage they have right now for Medicare? And good luck finding affordable coverage if you are a 70-year-old with a preexisting condition, such as heart disease. Good luck fighting endless battles with your private health insurance company over that one. Madam President, does this tea party Republican budget reflect our values and priorities as Americans? Is this the kind of country we want to live in, the kind of country we want to pass on to our children? Of course not. Americans don't want or expect a handout, but they rightfully expect a government that lends a helping hand, not one that stands in their way and not one that destroys the essence of the middle class. The American people want a government that helps them to achieve retirement security, a government that makes sure that when we put money away for retirement, it is going to be there when we retire. The American people want to maintain strong investments in education and infrastructure. To reduce deficits, the American people want shared sacrifice, including an increase in revenues from those who can most afford it. They want an end to taxpayer subsidies to oil and gas companies, and they want to cut Pentagon spending. Yet the Republican budget does exactly the opposite in every single respect. Make no mistake, this tea party Republican budget puts us on a course of disinvestment, drift, and decline. This budget wreaks of pessimism and gloom and doom. As I said, its defeatist premise is that the United States is poor and broke and we can no longer afford a strong and secure middle class, we can no longer afford to prepare our young or care for our elderly. Yet, bizarrely, the Republicans insist that we can afford--we can absolutely afford--another enormous tax cut for millionaires and billionaires. I totally reject their premise. I reject this defeatist Ryan budget-- the premise that America is poor and broke. Here is the truth: The United States is recovering from the largest economic downturn since the Great Depression and from the damage caused by very unwise budget decisions made over the last decade, and we are growing wealthier by the day. Our entrepreneurial economy, our technology, our universities and the arts are the envy of the world. Americans are still the best educated and most productive people on Earth. Most importantly, Americans continue to be an optimistic, can-do people. We have faced national trauma, including depressions and wars and national disasters, many times before, and we have always rebounded stronger and better than ever. We can overcome our current challenges without sacrificing our great middle class and without abandoning our seniors or people with disabilities and the less fortunate among us. There is one important point of agreement on both sides of the aisle here in the Senate: We agree the current budget deficits are unacceptable. We must bring these deficits under control. However, deficits are by no means our only urgent economic challenge. An even greater challenge--a greater challenge--is our fragile economy and the jobs crisis. Addressing this successfully will help reduce the deficit. Now, the unofficial unemployment rate is 8.8 percent, but the real unemployment rate, including people who are underemployed or who have dropped out of the job market in frustration and are no longer working, is a staggering 16 percent. Meanwhile, our middle class is under siege. Our middle class is being dismantled as fast as big corporations can shift our manufacturing jobs overseas. People are losing their savings, their health care, their pensions, and in many cases losing even their homes. With good reason, the American people feel they are losing the American dream for themselves and for their children. That is why we cannot look at the deficit reduction challenge in isolation. We cannot just take a slash-and-burn approach to the budget. Smart countries do not just turn a chainsaw on themselves. Instead of this tea party Republican budget, which is being sold through fear and fatalism, we need a budget that reflects the hopes and aspirations of the American people. We need a budget that brings deficits under control in a way that allows us to continue investments that boost competitiveness, create jobs, and strengthen the middle class. I would add this: We need a deficit reduction plan that actually attacks the sources of our current deficits. What are those sources? Well, a remarkable article from the front page of Sunday's--May 1-- Washington Post by Lori Montgomery documented clearly how the huge budget surpluses of the Clinton years were turned into the $1 trillion budget deficit President George W. Bush passed on to President Obama. The article states: Voices of caution were swept aside. Political leaders chose to cut taxes, jack up spending, and, for the first time in U.S. history, wage two wars solely with borrowed funds. The article cites a new analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office which determined that ``routine increases in defense and domestic spending account for only about 15 percent of the financial deterioration. The biggest culprit, by far, has been an erosion of tax revenue, triggered largely by two recessions and multiple rounds of tax cuts.'' The article also notes that Federal tax collections now stand at their lowest level as a percentage of the economy in 60 years. Let me repeat that--their lowest level in 60 years. Of legislation passed since 2001, when George W. Bush became President, about half of the negative impact on deficits came from reductions in revenue and nearly a quarter came from increases in defense spending. One-half came from reductions in revenue. I am talking now about what are the sources. What are the sources of the deficit hole we are in? In 2001, we had huge surpluses. CBO said if we maintained the same budget policies that by 2010 we would have paid off the entire national debt. 10 years later, in 2011, we have a $1.4 trillion deficit. What happened? What decisions were made in those 10 years that put us in that hole? As I said, the article by Lori Montgomery in the Washington Post clearly points out, and the CBO clearly points out, that half of the hole we are in came from reductions in revenue, one-quarter came from increases in defense spending, and one-quarter from everything else. As the CBO analysis makes clear, we do not just have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem. The main source of our current deficit problem is not the modest increase in domestic spending beyond the one-time spending in the Recovery Act--which is rapidly coming to an end. The principal source of our deficits is the deep tax cuts and the surging Pentagon budget, 75 percent of our current problems. Yet now the tea party Republican budget calls for trillions of dollars and yet more new tax cuts, largely for those at the top. It refuses to cut Pentagon spending in any significant way. It places almost the entire burden of deficit reduction on programs that support the middle class, seniors, people with disabilities, and those of low income. Americans are rightly asking some commonsense questions. If a principal source of our deficit problem has been deep tax cuts largely benefitting those at the top, shouldn't a big part of our deficit reduction plan include allowing those unaffordable tax cuts to expire? If ongoing domestic spending increases are only a minor source of our deficit problem, why does this Republican budget take a slash-and-burn approach to these programs which are so important to the middle class and to working Americans? The answer, of course, is the tea party Republican budget is not principally a deficit reduction plan. It is an ideological manifesto that encompasses the entire party wish list, everything from more tax breaks for the rich to dismantling Medicare and Medicaid. I have a simple test for judging any budget plan. What does that plan do to give hope and opportunity to middle-class Americans who have been hardest hit by the economic downturn? To speak in terms specific to my State of Iowa, what did it do for Webster City? Webster City is a community like thousands of others across the United States. It is a town where middle-class families work hard, play by the rules, sacrifice for their children. But it is also a town where a decent middle class way of life is threatened. Recently, in Webster City, IA, the Electrolux plant that has been the town's economic engine for over 80 years closed its doors. Production was moved to Juarez, Mexico. In the final round of layoffs in March, 500 Iowans lost their well-paying, middle-class jobs. This most recent factory closing comes on the heels of 222 plant closings just in Iowa last year, destroying nearly 12,000 well-paying, middle-class jobs. As we all know, each of these plant closures reverberated on Main Street, with many local stores and restaurants falling on hard times or going out of business themselves. Let's be clear, the wrong kind of budget plan, one that indiscriminately slashes funding for education and job training, infrastructure and research, will deepen the plight of Webster City and similar communities across America. Indeed, by accelerating the erosion of the middle class in this country, such a plan will make our fiscal situation even worse. There can be no sustainable economic recovery in the United States without the recovery of the middle class. There can be no sustainable solution to our budget challenges without a strong middle class, a middle class that is getting its fair share of rising national income. As I said earlier, we are growing wealthier by the day in America. We are the wealthiest country in world history, and we are growing wealthier by the day. But what we ought to make sure is that the middle class will get its fair share of that rising national income. Again, I think the test of a budget plan is this: Will it strengthen the middle class in America? Will it require shared sacrifice with a promise of shared prosperity in the long run? I have applied this test to the tea party Republican budget and it comes up woefully short. This tea party Republican budget cuts the top tax rate for millionaires and billionaires from 35 percent down to 25 percent. How will that help laid-off workers in Webster City? The Republican budget dismantling Medicare and replacing it with an absurdly inadequate voucher system, will that strengthen the retirement security of seniors in Webster City? This budget of the Republican tea party people guts Medicaid. Will that improve the lives of seniors and people with disabilities who depend on Medicaid to pay for nursing home care and home health care assistance? The tea party Republican budget slashes funding for Pell grants. Will that improve the prospect for kids in Webster City who plan to go to college but whose parents are now unemployed and without resources? The tea party Republican budget makes Draconian cuts to everything from food safety and law enforcement to environmental protection. How will that improve the quality of life in Webster City and communities across America? We know the answer to these questions. The bottom line is, the Republican's budget offers more pain and no gain to the people of Webster City. Instead of increasing opportunity, it sends a message of surrender and defeat. Indeed, let's speak the plain truth. With this tea party budget, Republicans have taken their class warfare to a new level. They have launched an unprecedented assault on middle-class and working Americans. Their message to struggling folks in Webster City and communities like it across America is brutally clear: Tough luck. I have mine. You are on your own. This Republican tea party budget would drive down our standard of living, shred the economic safety net, reduce access to health care and higher education, and do damage to our public schools' ability to prepare our kids for the jobs of the future. We can and must do better. I have come to the floor to propose an alternative approach to the Federal budget, a planned approach that will discipline the Federal budget and bring deficits under control while continuing to make critical investments in a stronger America. Best of all, we know this approach can work because it is consciously modeled on the successful budget policies of the 1990s. Under President Clinton's leadership, Congress passed a bold economic plan that combined tough-minded spending cuts with smart investments and, yes, revenue increases. This created large budget surpluses and put us on a track to completely eliminate the national debt within a decade. It created a brief era of shared prosperity for the middle class, with 22 million new jobs and 116 consecutive months of economic expansion, the longest in American history. I say to the people across America, we can do this again. The key to renewing America and restoring our economy is to revitalize the middle class. This means reducing deficits while continuing to invest in education, innovation, and infrastructure, boosting American competitiveness. It means restoring a level playing field with fair taxation, an empowered workforce, and a strong ladder of opportunity to give every American access to the middle class. We have the resources, both financial and human, to do these things. I repeat what I said earlier, the central falsehood in the tea party Republican budget is its assumption that America is poor and broke; its assumption that we can no longer afford to invest in a prosperous and secure middle class. Again, I say emphatically, we are not poor and we are not broke. We have the highest per capita income of any major country. As I said earlier, the problem is how our wealth is distributed, how it is managed, and how it has been invested--or should I say ``misinvested.'' Income inequality in the United States has reached levels not seen since immediately before the Great Depression. Middle-class Americans are working harder than ever, but they are falling behind. Real average incomes have not gone up since 1979, more than three decades ago. Let me repeat that: Average real incomes haven't gone up since 1979, more than three decades ago. In fact, over the last decade, the average income of working Americans has actually declined while those in the top 10 percent of income earners and wealthy in America, their incomes and their wealth has soared to new levels. Vast wealth because of tax breaks and other government preferences have flowed to millionaires and money manipulators who pay a tax rate that is lower than that paid by their chauffeurs and secretaries. In 2007, the top 25 hedge fund managers took home an average income of $892 million--yes, you heard that right, $892 million each, average income for 1 year. Over the last decade, the average income of the top 1 percent in America increased by an average of more than one-quarter of a million dollars a year. Again, let me repeat: The top 1 percent of income earners in America, their income increased by an average of more than one-quarter of a million dollars a year for 10 years. I ask, who in their right mind believes these people need another giant tax cut? People do not hate the rich. To the contrary, most Americans aspire to do well and to achieve financial independence. That is a big part of the American dream. But Americans do resent it when the wealthy and powerful manipulate the political system to reap huge advantages at the expense of working people and the middle class. Ordinary people think the game is rigged and unfair, and you know what? They are right. Yet this tea party Republican budget says to middle-class Americans again: Hey, tough luck. I have mine. You are on your own. Your retirement security is expendable. Your access to health care and college is expendable. Your desire for quality public schools is expendable. Your quest for a modernized transportation system is expendable. All these things, according to the Republican budget, are expendable in order to create a Tax Code even more favorable to the rich and the powerful and the privileged. This is deeply wrong. The middle class is the backbone of this country, and it is time our leaders showed the backbone to defend it. We need an alternative, a budget that invests in education and opportunity for all Americans, a budget that invests in the retirement security of the middle class and, yes, a budget that does not abandon the less fortunate among us, including seniors and people with disabilities. As we saw in the 1990s, we can do these things at the same time we are bringing deficits under control. This will require smart, prudent reductions in spending, and it will require reform of the Tax Code to make it fairer and more equitable, a Tax Code that asks more from those at the top whose incomes have skyrocketed in recent decades. Let me speak first about spending cuts. I hope I have set an example with my own appropriations subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies of the Appropriations Committee. The fiscal year 2011 spending bill that was enacted last month cuts spending in these areas by almost $6 billion and eliminates dozens of individual programs. I also serve on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. Of course, I believe we can make major spending cuts without harming our national security. I agree with Secretary Gates, who has urged us to terminate the additional C-17 cargo planes and a new amphibious fighting vehicle. I would also save $12 billion by terminating the V-22 Osprey, which even Dick Cheney labeled a turkey and tried to cancel it. I would also save $80 billion over the next decade by reducing the number of Active-Duty military personnel stationed in Europe and Japan. Most importantly, it is time to save hundreds of billions of dollars by speeding up the return of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. It costs an estimated $1 million a year to deploy and support each soldier deployed in those wars. That is an extravagance we can do without. We can also make cuts close to home. I represent a farm State, and I have a strong record of supporting a true farm income safety net. However, in this time of strong commodity prices, record levels of net farm income, the USDA--the Department of Agriculture--is still paying out nearly $5 billion a year in direct payments to farmers, having no relationship to farm income or commodity prices or to what they are even planting. No question, we can save some money here while still making sure farmers have a good solid income safety net protection system. We also must find additional deficit reduction in the area of health care. Once again, the tea party Republican budget flunks the test. It does not reduce spending on health care, it just shifts costs. It shifts the costs to seniors and others by making them pay most of the bills themselves. By contrast, the new health reform law actually cuts health care costs. Again, according to CBO, it reduces the deficit by hundreds of billions in the first decade and by more than $1 trillion--the health reform bill cuts the deficit by more than $1 trillion in the second decade, while preserving and strengthening Medicare, not dumping it on the backs of seniors. It does so by rewarding health care providers for the quality of care, not the quantity. It does so by placing a sharp new emphasis on wellness and prevention, keeping people out of the hospital in the first place. It does so by creating an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts, and consumers, to examine patient data and recommend the best ways to reduce wasteful spending and ineffective procedures, while preserving the quality of care. We can and must build on the health care savings in the Affordable Care Act. But my friends on the other side of the aisle want to repeal the Health Reform Act. But they do not say where they are going to get the money to make up the $1 trillion hole it will blow in the budget in the next decade. The enormously successful deficit reduction campaign of the 1990s insisted on a balanced approach: spending cuts and revenue increases. Revenue increases were concentrated on the most affluent Americans, those who could most easily afford it, and who benefited the most from the strong economy and the stock market that followed. This must be our template as we raise necessary revenues to reduce future deficits. By all means, we must allow the Bush era tax breaks for the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans to expire immediately. To put it bluntly, they do not need it, and we cannot afford it. The fact is, high-income Americans did extremely well in the 1990s under the higher rates of the Clinton years, and they will continue to do very well in the future, while contributing their fair share to bringing deficits under control. I also strongly agree with President Obama's proposal to limit itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans, a reform that would reduce the deficit by $320 billion over 10 years. We need to end the outrageous gimmicks in our Tax Code. Just one example. The ``carried interest'' loophole allows many hedge fund managers to pay taxes at just a 15-percent rate on part of their bonuses, a far lower rate than middle-class Americans pay. As I said earlier, in one recent year, the top 25 hedge fund mangers took home an average income of $892 million a year each. Let's tax this income the same way we tax the income of teachers and truckdrivers. In addition, I strongly favor a modest speculation tax on certain types of financial transactions, a .25-percent tax--that is one-quarter of 1 percent tax--on each stock transaction, and a similar tax on options, futures, and swap transactions. In order to minimize the impact on ordinary American investors, this would exclude transactions in tax-benefited pension accounts such as 401(k)s and IRAs and defined benefit plans. Some might say, well, this sounds kind of a pie in the sky. Well, Great Britain currently levies a tax on stock transactions that is twice as high as what I am proposing--twice as high as what I am proposing. There is no question that Wall Street can easily bear this modest tax. John Bogle, the legendary founder of the Vanguard Mutual Fund Group, has long advocated such a speculation tax, a transaction tax, in order to ``slow the rampant speculation that has created such havoc in our financial markets.'' We also should be working to eliminate the tax provisions which promote the shifting of jobs to other countries. The President's budget proposes the elimination of over $100 billion in international tax breaks in this area. A prudent but aggressive mix of spending reductions and tax increases, combined with stronger economic growth and an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, will bring Federal deficits under control. This will restore the fiscal discipline that was squandered in the years after President Clinton left office. Best of all, this restored fiscal foundation will allow us to continue making critical investments in transportation and infrastructure, education and energy, investments that will put Americans back to work, strengthen our global competitiveness, and prepare our workforce for the future. Make no mistake, we have no time to waste. While the United States has been distracted and weakened by foolish wars and speculative bubbles, our competitors have been charging ahead. We have lost major ground to China and to other rapidly growing economies, including Brazil, South Korea. We are playing catchup and the stakes are enormous. Across America, roads are crumbling, bridges are collapsing. Our formerly world-class interstate highway system is increasingly overwhelmed. Mass transit systems, including Washington's once proud Metro system, have fallen into disrepair. We have a backlog of nearly $300 billion in school construction and modernization. In infrastructure, we currently invest less than one-third of what Western Europe does as a percentage of GDP. China has tripled its investment in education, and is building hundreds of new colleges and universities at a time when we are slashing school budgets and laying off teachers. The tea party Republican budget makes this investment gap far worse. It proposes to cut funding for transportation by 25 percent, and for education by 25 percent, and in future years would cut those investments even more deeply. Congressman Ryan has the audacity to tell us this is ``a path to prosperity.'' Common sense tells us it is a bridge to nowhere. These statistics are not abstractions. Investments in education, infrastructure, and innovation directly translate into more and better jobs, higher incomes, stronger economic growth. That is why we need to get America moving again. For starters, we need a massive new commitment to infrastructure expansion and modernization, truly a Marshall plan for America. The first step is to adopt a solid 6-year surface transportation reauthorization bill that will allow us to modernize our transportation system. We also need robust new investments in clean, renewable, domestically produced energy. This will lower our energy costs in the long term, and will reduce our dependence on some of the most unstable countries in the world. Early in the 20th century, we provided the emerging oil energy with subsidies to accelerate its growth. Today, we must provide similar policies to accelerate America's transition to a clean energy economy, including long-term tax credits for a renewable energy generation, and for infrastructure investments for biofuels, as well as smart grid technologies to enable broader renewable energy use. The goal should be 25 percent of our energy from renewable resources by 2025. In the field of education, we need major new investments. This begins with Federal support for universal preschool education to ensure that every child is ready to learn and succeed in school. It means an ambitious reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education bill that close the gap between world-class schools in affluent suburbs, and struggling schools in poor urban and rural communities. It means providing resources to ensure that the goal of graduating students who are college and career ready applies equally to students with disabilities. In closing, in my remarks today I have offered not just an alternative approach to bringing deficits under control but an alternative vision of the role of the Federal Government. Going back to the 1930s, the American people have supported and strengthened an unwritten social contract. That social contract says we will prepare our young and care for our elderly. That social contract says if you work hard and play by the rules, you will be able to rise to the middle class or even beyond. That social contract says a cardinal role of government is to provide a ladder of opportunity, so every American can realistically aspire to the American dream. In one fell swoop, this tea party Republican budget rips up that social contract. It replaces it with a winner-take-all philosophy, again, that tells struggling, aspiring people and communities across America: I have got mine. You are on your own. As I said at the outset, the Republican budget is premised on the idea that America is poor and broke, that our best days are behind us, that we have no choice but to slash investment required in order to keep our middle class strong. I totally disagree. America remains a tremendously wealthy and resourceful nation. We are an optimistic, forward-looking people. We are a purposeful and can-do people, and we expect our government to be on our side, the side of the middle class. We expect it to be an instrument of national greatness and purpose, allowing us to come together to achieve the big things we cannot achieve as individuals, things such as building an interstate highway system, mapping the human genome, one day discovering a cure for cancer. Through our government, we come together to provide a ladder of opportunity to give every citizen a shot at the American dream, a ladder of opportunity that includes quality public schools and universities, Pell grants, the GI bill, job training. Through our government, we come together to ensure that our citizens have a secure retirement with guaranteed access to health care, and to ensure that the less fortunate among us are not abandoned to the shadows of life. I am convinced that the great majority of Americans share this positive can-do vision. We refuse to be dragged backward into a winner- take-all society where the privileged and the powerful seize even a greater share of the wealth, as the middle class struggles and declines. Americans are a tough and resilient and optimistic people. We can and will work together to meet the great challenges of our day. We can and will, indeed we must, restore the middle class as the backbone of a stronger, richer and fairer America. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin.) The Senator from Texas.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate who has been very interested in and involved with the areas of biomedical research, health care and the improvement of the public health, I want to draw the attention of the Congress and the Nation to the 175th anniversary of the National Library of Medicine, NLM, located at the National Institutes of Health, NIH. NLM has changed the way scientific and medical information is organized, stored, accessed and disseminated. Throughout its distinguished history, the Library's hallmark has been information innovation, leading to exciting scientific discoveries that ultimately improve the public health. From its modest beginnings as the Library of the U.S. Army Surgeon General in 1836, the National Library of Medicine has grown to become the world's largest medical library and the producer of electronic information resources used by millions of people around the globe every day. The NLM has been fortunate to be led by Donald A.B. Lindberg, M.D. since 1984. Under Dr. Lindberg's leadership, the Library has dramatically advanced toward its goal of providing access to biomedical information--anytime, anywhere--for scientists, health professionals, and the public. During Dr. Lindberg's tenure, NLM has embraced the Internet as the primary mode of delivering its services and expanded its portfolio to include genetic sequence data, high-resolution anatomical images, clinical trials information, and a wide array of high-quality information for consumers. One wonders what astonishing developments the next 175 years might bring. Throughout its 175 years, NLM's work has been vital to facilitating and improving the effectiveness of biomedical research, getting important health information out to health professionals and consumers and conducting groundbreaking informatics research. Index Medicus, a groundbreaking index of medical journal articles first published in 1879, evolved into MEDLINE, the first marriage of online search technology and nationwide telecommunications, in 1971. Available free of charge since 1997 via the Internet, PubMed/MEDLINE is today the most frequently consulted medical database in the world. NLM began providing toxicology and environmental health data for use in emergency response and disaster management in the mid-1960s. Today, it produces information services to help health professionals, disaster information specialists, and the general public cope with emergencies and disasters ranging from children swallowing household cleaners to overturned trucks carrying hazardous materials to the widespread effects of hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires, and oil spills. NLM established librarian training programs and the National Network of Libraries of Medicine in the late 1960s, to provide equal access to the biomedical literature to persons across the country. Now with nearly 6,000 members, NLM and this network of academic, hospital, and public libraries partner with community-based organizations to bring high-quality information services to health professionals and the public--regardless of geographic location, socioeconomic status or level of access to computers and telecommunications. NLM has conducted and supported training programs and groundbreaking informatics research and development for more than 40 years. The Library, its grantees, and its former trainees continue to play essential roles in the development of electronic health records, health data standards, and the exchange of health information. NLM is home to the National Center for Biotechnology Information, NCBI, established in 1988 as a national resource for molecular biology information. Its work was essential to the mapping of the human genome. Today, NCBI is an indispensable international repository and software tool developer for genetic sequences and other scientific data, and a pioneer and leader in linking data and published research results to promote new scientific discoveries. NLM began intensive development of Web health information services for the general public in 1998 with the release of MedlinePlus.gov. Now available in English and Spanish, MedlinePlus is just one of many NLM consumer health information products also available on mobile devices. An award-winning free magazine, NIH MedlinePlus, is edited by NLM staff and is an important vehicle for sharing information from all of the NIH Institutes and Centers, in language that consumers can easily understand. Copies of the magazine, both an English and Spanish- language version, are distributed to doctors' offices, clinics, community health centers and other sites around the Nation. NLM released ClinicalTrials.gov in 2000. It is now the world's largest source of information about clinical trials recruiting for patients and healthy volunteers, and also provides summary results of some trials long before they appear in the published literature. In 2003, the Library teamed with the National Institute on Aging to launch NIHSeniorHealth. The site features authoritative, up-to-date information from the NIH Institutes and Centers, in a format that addresses the cognitive changes that come with older adulthood and allows easy use. Also in 2003, NLM began a program called the Information Rx. Partnering with a variety of respected national physician groups and other organizations, NLM has supplied prescription pads to health providers, so that they can point their patients to the first-rate health information on the MedlinePlus site. In recognition of its many achievements, today I am introducing the following Senate Resolution to commemorate the 175th anniversary of the founding of the National Library of Medicine. I offer my congratulations to NLM and to its current and past leadership and staff and thank them for their important public service.

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN

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