Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I join with my good friend, the Senator from Ohio, Senator Brown, in commemorating Workers Memorial Day, which actually was last week. Since we weren't in session then, we wanted to take the time today to commemorate Workers Memorial Day. I am always greatly appreciative of my friend wearing the canary pin on his lapel because, as the Senator from Ohio knows, my father was a coal miner for over 20 years. A lot of people still don't know we had coal mines in Iowa. At one time, back in those days, Iowa was the third largest coal- producing State in the Nation. He worked there a long time ago, before there were safety laws or anything. In fact, most of the time he worked there was before I was born. I can remember him, later on, telling stories about the mines and how many people would be injured or killed--it was sort of an accepted thing--every day, week, or month. People would die and cave-ins would happen. Of course, almost everybody of his generation who worked in those coal mines eventually got miners' cough, as they called it back then--miners' lung or black lung disease, as we know it now. They all virtually had that later on in their lives. I appreciate my friend from Ohio commemorating Workers Memorial Day. More than 20 years ago, family members of workers killed on the job joined with safety advocates to launch Workers Memorial Day--a day of remembrance and advocacy. To honor the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration--OSHA, as it is called--April 28 was chosen as Workers Memorial Day. This year, that day takes on special significance because it marks the 40th anniversary of the creation of OSHA. The passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which created OSHA, was one of the monumental legislative achievements of the 20th century. This landmark legislation reflects the values that all Americans share, which is that workers should not have to risk their lives to earn their livelihood, and that workers, employers, and the government must all work together to keep people safe and healthy on the job. Signed into law by President Nixon, this bipartisan legislation has been a tremendous success, saving the lives and the health of hundreds of thousands of American workers. Here are the facts. Immediately prior to the creation of OSHA in 1970, an average of 14,000 workers died annually from occupational injuries. In 2009, despite a workforce that is twice as large as the workforce of 1970, 4,340 workers were killed on the job. Before OSHA, about 11 workers were killed for every 100,000 people working. Now roughly 3.3 workers are killed per 100,000 people working. Again, these figures are still too large. We can and must do better. We should also take a moment to reflect on how many tragedies have been prevented and lives saved because of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. I fear that this simple truth--that workplace safety has been a phenomenal success--is being ignored in Washington these days. Nowadays some people would have us believe that workplace safety regulations are something bad. They claim that OSHA standards are ``job killers.'' But just because some special interest groups with highly paid lobbyists keep repeating this absurd mantra, that doesn't mean it is true. In fact, the opposite is true. Smart safety regulations administered by active, unbiased regulators improve and stabilize our economy. They save workers' lives, prevent catastrophic accidents, reduce health care costs, and ensure that industries are responsible for their actions instead of dumping the cost of their mistakes on workers and taxpayers. In addition to the more than 4,000 workers killed on the job every year, which I mentioned, almost 50,000 Americans die every year from occupational illnesses. Let me repeat that. Almost 50,000 Americans die every year from occupational illnesses. More than 4.1 million workers are injured every year. The cost of these injuries and illnesses is enormous. It is estimated at somewhere between $160 billion to $318 billion a year for the direct and indirect costs of these injuries. Additional safeguards to prevent these injuries and illnesses, along with strong enforcement of existing laws, would save thousands of lives and thousands of injuries from happening and would save the taxpayers billions of dollars. To accomplish this, it is clear that our safety laws need to be updated. We have learned much in the 40 years since the Occupational Safety and Health Act was passed, and it is past time to use this knowledge for meaningful reform. For example, we know that whistleblowers are critical to bringing safety problems to light. But these whistleblowers won't come forward unless the law contains stronger protections against retaliation. Right now, we have stronger protections for financial whistleblowers under the Sarbanes-Oxley law than we do for workers blowing the whistle and trying to save lives. Repeating that, we have stronger whistleblower protections for financial whistleblowers under the existing Sarbanes-Oxley financial reform law than we do for workers who are trying to save lives by blowing the whistle. That is not right. That should be corrected. We also know that while most responsible companies make worker safety a top priority, there are some unscrupulous employers who cut corners on safety to save costs. Unfortunately, as a past Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee report demonstrated, when the negligence of these companies results in workers being killed on the job, these irresponsible companies walk away with a slap on the wrist. OSHA penalties are pitifully low. The average fine for a worker being killed on the job is $5,000. The average fine for an irresponsible company-- and they have to be found as not acting prudently and that they were skimping on safety regulations and not adhering to well-defined safety regulations. But when somebody gets killed, the average fine is $5,000. What we need is real penalties to ensure that all employers have real incentives to comply with safety and health laws. These and other changes in the law are desperately overdue, which is why I have consistently sponsored and supported the Protecting America's Workers Act. This bill makes commonsense reforms to bring worker laws into the 21st century, with minimal burden on the vast majority of employers that comply with the law. In this Congress, once again, I plan to do everything possible to fight for this important legislation. In addition to these much-needed updates to the Occupational Safety and Health Act, we also must recognize the key role that vigilant enforcement plays in keeping workers safe. Safety laws don't work unless there is a legitimate expectation that they will actually be enforced. In recent years, we made real progress in ensuring adequate funding for our workplace safety agencies. For example, increases in funding for the Mine Safety and Health Administration in recent years have enabled us to meet health inspections for 3 years in a row. MSHA and the Department of Labor have funds to attack a backlog of appeals filed by mine operators. These appeals have helped some operators avoid heightened enforcement actions. OSHA has received funds to restore the number of inspectors that it had over a decade ago. However, we in the Senate have recently had to fend off efforts to roll back this progress. H.R. 1, the Republican fiscal year 2011 appropriations bill, cut the Occupational Safety and Health Administration by 18 percent--18 percent. This would have paralyzed the agency and allowed unscrupulous employers to ignore worker safety and health protections. This bill would have allowed the backlog of mine safety and health citations to increase. It would have prevented MSHA from moving forward on improvements it has initiated in mine emergency response and other areas. Thankfully, Senate Democrats and the President are standing firm and refusing to cut workplace safety funding to finance tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. As we continue the budget debates, we should keep in mind the budget reflects moral choices about the kind of country and society we want to be. Personally, I am committed to upholding the bipartisan values reflected in the passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. All Americans have the right to a safe workplace. While we have made tremendous progress, as I pointed out, in the last 40 years under OSHA, there is much more work to be done. Over 4,000 lives lost each year is still unacceptably high. We owe the 4,340 workers we lost just last year our best efforts to ensure that such tragic losses are dramatically reduced. We should not rest until all of our fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, families can go to work each day knowing they can come home safely each night. Once again, on April 28, we commemorate Workers Memorial Day, and we renew our commitment to making sure workers all across America have the protections of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, that we provide the funding for these agencies to make sure the law is enforced, and to make sure we reassure every working American that they have a right-- they have a right--to a safe workplace. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, when most people think of how our government works, they tend to think of the elected officials, the President, Senators, House Members, and of the institutions in which they serve. However, in order for elected officials to fulfill their constitutional duties, Members of Congress rely on many individuals and institutions whose work is vital to the basic functions of government. These are individuals who often work in relative obscurity, but whose contributions are often no less important than those of the more visible actors and institutions who stand before the public. I rise today to recognize one such individual who, over his decades- long career of service at the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research branch of the U.S. Congress, has had provided a profound and lasting contribution to the U.S. Congress. That individual, Joe Richardson, the food and nutrition policy analyst of CRS, will soon be leaving CRS and I, for one, feel that it is not only important, but vital, for Joe to be recognized for his decades of public service to the U.S. Congress and to the American public. As a long-time member of the Agriculture Committee, on which I served as both the chair and ranking Democrat on several occasions, my staff and I relied heavily on Joe Richardson on numerous occasions. He provided technical assistance and professional judgment in the formulation of the nutrition title of the 2002 and 2007 farm bills, and also played a key role in the committee's successful enactment of the 2004 and 2010 child nutrition reauthorization. In each of these cases, Joe went above and beyond the call of duty--in many cases enduring, like the rest of us, long, late night conference committee meetings that would carry on for weeks, even months. As a result of his efforts, I can say with confidence that, absent Joe's efforts, the legislation that we produced would not have been nearly as sound. More importantly, because of Joe's help, each of these pieces of legislation succeeded in its core mission--helping to ensure that millions of Americans are able to obtain a sufficient and nutritious diet. Each of us, in one way or another, takes for granted the work of others as we do our own jobs. This is not because their efforts are not noticeable, but rather, because the efforts are so consistent and steadfast, carried out with humility and without any expectation of praise or recognition. This is exactly how Joe has carried out his duties over the years. But I would be remiss in not taking the opportunity to stand up and thank Joe for his truly remarkable service to the Congressional Research Service, to Congress, and to the country. I have no doubt, after such long service, that moving on to new opportunities and challenges is not without its bittersweet moments for Joe. But I know that Joe can move on to these challenges secure in his knowledge that he has discharged his duties with the utmost professionalism and competence. He has been a pillar of the food and nutrition assistance policy community for years. For his service, I am grateful.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as we seek to ensure that our students have the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in college and careers, we must revisit how learning time is structured to help them meet the ever-rising expectations and ever-growing demands of the 21st century global economy. The Time for Innovation Matters in Education Act, or TIME Act, would provide high-need schools with the resources they need to expand the school day, week, or year so students have more time to learn. By providing additional time for more in-depth and rigorous learning opportunities in core and other academic subjects, as well as enrichment activities that contribute to a well-rounded education, we can increase students' academic engagement and outcomes to help close our nation's achievement gap. That is why I am pleased to introduce this legislation, which my colleague Rep. Donald Payne will introduce in the House, today. Under our present school calendar, most American students spend 6 hours a day for 180 days in school each year. This outdated calendar was designed to meet the needs of a farm- and factory-based economy in the early 20th century, and fails to provide students with the learning time needed to complete a rigorous curriculum and meet high standards. In fact, American students spend about 30 percent less time in school than students in other leading nations, leaving American students at a competitive disadvantage. For example, students in China, Japan, and South Korea attend school 40 days more on average than American students and significantly outperform American students on average in math and science. To strengthen our competitiveness and remain a global leader, we must increase how much learning time we provide our students, especially our at-risk students. The TIME Act would give schools the flexibility to comprehensively redesign and expand their schedules and increase learning time by at least 30 percent to meet students' diverse academic needs and interests. The TIME Act's goal is not merely to encourage schools to add more time at the end of the day, but to take a close look at how they use their time and to redesign the entire school schedule to create a program or curriculum with teaching and learning opportunities to better meet students' needs. This legislation encourages strong partnerships between schools and community partners such as community- based organizations, institutions of higher education, and cultural organizations to help provide students with a broader and richer learning experience, which should include music, fine arts, and physical education--important pursuits that all too often lose ground in our schools due to a focus on reading and math. Many schools around the country have expanded learning time in their calendars with promising results, such as Boston's Clarence Edwards Middle School, which was one of the lowest-performing schools just a few years ago. But in only three years of expanded learning time, dedicated school leaders and teachers were able to redesign and transform the school into one of the city's and state's highest- performing schools. Students, particularly those who are furthest behind, benefit from more time for learning, and programs that significantly increase the total number of hours in a regular school schedule lead to gains in student academic achievement. In 2006, minority students and students with disabilities in Clarence Edwards scored far below the state averages in English and math, and while English language learners met state averages in math, none were proficient in English. By 2009, every subgroup met or outperformed state averages, in most cases by wide margins. According to research, expanded learning time is especially important for our high-need students. Students in disadvantaged families show a drop-off in learning over long summer recesses compared to their higher-income classmates, and they fall farther behind each year. These students are also less likely to have parents with the time and resources to help them with their school work. Expanded learning time can help these students accelerate gains and catch up on their learning gaps by expanding the school year and shortening summer recess. In addition to those at risk of falling behind, more time for learning helps students who are on grade level get ahead by providing additional time for enrichment and a broader curriculum. Additional time also enables more students to participate in experiential and interactive learning, internships, and other work- based and service learning opportunities in their schools and communities, all of which help keep students engaged in school and make school more relevant. Equally important, expanded learning time initiatives provide teachers with increased opportunities to work collaboratively and to participate in common planning, within and across grades and subjects, to improve instruction, and, in turn, increase student achievement. This extra time in the school schedule empowers teachers to complete the curriculum, meet the needs of all students, and collaborate with colleagues. The TIME Act requires grantees to design comprehensive plans, in collaboration with teachers, to encompass professional development that focuses on changes in teaching practices and curriculum delivery that will result in improved student academic achievement as well as student engagement and success. To accurately assess the difference these programs make, the TIME Act calls for a rigorous evaluation that will measure several critical performance indicators. We need to know which models and practices produce the best outcomes for students and this evaluation will ensure that we identify and disseminate them nationwide. As we reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, I am committed to helping communities offer expanded learning time so that more students can succeed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as we seek to ensure that our students have the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in college and careers, we must revisit how learning time is structured to help them meet the ever-rising expectations and ever-growing demands of the 21st century global economy. The Time for Innovation Matters in Education Act, or TIME Act, would provide high-need schools with the resources they need to expand the school day, week, or year so students have more time to learn. By providing additional time for more in-depth and rigorous learning opportunities in core and other academic subjects, as well as enrichment activities that contribute to a well-rounded education, we can increase students' academic engagement and outcomes to help close our nation's achievement gap. That is why I am pleased to introduce this legislation, which my colleague Rep. Donald Payne will introduce in the House, today. Under our present school calendar, most American students spend 6 hours a day for 180 days in school each year. This outdated calendar was designed to meet the needs of a farm- and factory-based economy in the early 20th century, and fails to provide students with the learning time needed to complete a rigorous curriculum and meet high standards. In fact, American students spend about 30 percent less time in school than students in other leading nations, leaving American students at a competitive disadvantage. For example, students in China, Japan, and South Korea attend school 40 days more on average than American students and significantly outperform American students on average in math and science. To strengthen our competitiveness and remain a global leader, we must increase how much learning time we provide our students, especially our at-risk students. The TIME Act would give schools the flexibility to comprehensively redesign and expand their schedules and increase learning time by at least 30 percent to meet students' diverse academic needs and interests. The TIME Act's goal is not merely to encourage schools to add more time at the end of the day, but to take a close look at how they use their time and to redesign the entire school schedule to create a program or curriculum with teaching and learning opportunities to better meet students' needs. This legislation encourages strong partnerships between schools and community partners such as community- based organizations, institutions of higher education, and cultural organizations to help provide students with a broader and richer learning experience, which should include music, fine arts, and physical education--important pursuits that all too often lose ground in our schools due to a focus on reading and math. Many schools around the country have expanded learning time in their calendars with promising results, such as Boston's Clarence Edwards Middle School, which was one of the lowest-performing schools just a few years ago. But in only three years of expanded learning time, dedicated school leaders and teachers were able to redesign and transform the school into one of the city's and state's highest- performing schools. Students, particularly those who are furthest behind, benefit from more time for learning, and programs that significantly increase the total number of hours in a regular school schedule lead to gains in student academic achievement. In 2006, minority students and students with disabilities in Clarence Edwards scored far below the state averages in English and math, and while English language learners met state averages in math, none were proficient in English. By 2009, every subgroup met or outperformed state averages, in most cases by wide margins. According to research, expanded learning time is especially important for our high-need students. Students in disadvantaged families show a drop-off in learning over long summer recesses compared to their higher-income classmates, and they fall farther behind each year. These students are also less likely to have parents with the time and resources to help them with their school work. Expanded learning time can help these students accelerate gains and catch up on their learning gaps by expanding the school year and shortening summer recess. In addition to those at risk of falling behind, more time for learning helps students who are on grade level get ahead by providing additional time for enrichment and a broader curriculum. Additional time also enables more students to participate in experiential and interactive learning, internships, and other work- based and service learning opportunities in their schools and communities, all of which help keep students engaged in school and make school more relevant. Equally important, expanded learning time initiatives provide teachers with increased opportunities to work collaboratively and to participate in common planning, within and across grades and subjects, to improve instruction, and, in turn, increase student achievement. This extra time in the school schedule empowers teachers to complete the curriculum, meet the needs of all students, and collaborate with colleagues. The TIME Act requires grantees to design comprehensive plans, in collaboration with teachers, to encompass professional development that focuses on changes in teaching practices and curriculum delivery that will result in improved student academic achievement as well as student engagement and success. To accurately assess the difference these programs make, the TIME Act calls for a rigorous evaluation that will measure several critical performance indicators. We need to know which models and practices produce the best outcomes for students and this evaluation will ensure that we identify and disseminate them nationwide. As we reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, I am committed to helping communities offer expanded learning time so that more students can succeed. 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 Megan Cheney, Nicole Miya Ogawa, and Jan Spreitzenbarth of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's session.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, the Senate will have before it today or tomorrow, depending upon the flow around here, two very misguided bills. This will come about when we have our budget come up for a vote. Under an agreement to get that budget up, we are going to have a vote on two separate bills. One bill would totally repeal and defund the affordable care act--the health care reform bill we passed--and the other one would prevent funding for Planned Parenthood. So I wish to take a few minutes on the floor of the Senate to speak about how misguided these two bills are. First, let me talk about the bill that would defund the affordable care act. This bill we will be voting on will prohibit any funds appropriated this year and any funds appropriated in any prior year from being used to carry out the affordable care act. This would remove the engine from health care reform while the train is steaming down the track. So, again, why are we voting on this? The reason is, Republicans have tried a frontal assault on the affordable care act--a debate on the merits--and they failed. This body voted down Senator McConnell's amendment to the FAA authorization bill that would have repealed health reform in its entirety. But I guess what we can't do directly, we try to do indirectly. So now the Republicans are trying to undermine health reform by other means, such as defunding it. Well, this strategy only makes sense if you are absolutely obsessed-- obsessed--with tearing down health care reform. Make no mistake about it, this bill is the equivalent of repeal. By depriving the bill of all funding, it would turn back the clock on all we have accomplished over the past year. It would take us back to the bad old days, when insurance companies were in the driver's seat, telling us what kinds of health care we are entitled to and when we are entitled to it. Instead of protecting all Americans against arbitrary limits on coverage, repeal would take us back to the days when insurance companies could turn off our coverage just when we are the sickest. That would hurt families such as the Grasshoffs from Texas, who testified before my committee earlier this year. They were unable to find coverage that would pay for their son's hemophilia treatment until the affordable care act banned lifetime limits. Instead of allowing young people starting a new job or a new business or going off to school to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26, repeal would make them fend for themselves in a chaotic market that offers too little coverage for too much money. That would hurt folks such as Emily Schlichting, who suffers from a rare autoimmune disorder that would make her uninsurable in the bad old days. But because of the affordable care act, she is able to stay on her parents' policy until she is 26. Yet at a HELP Committee hearing in January--this is Emily, a wonderful young woman--she said: Young people are the future of this country and we are the most affected by the reform--we're the generation that is most uninsured. We need the Affordable Care Act because it is literally an investment in the future of this country. It would also hurt folks such as Carol in Ankeny, IA, whose 19-year- old daughter was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes 9 years ago. Thanks to the affordable care act, Carol doesn't have to worry about her daughter's preexisting condition, disqualifying her for insurance coverage, and she can stay on her parents' health insurance coverage after college. Carol also doesn't have to worry about the cost of her daughter's care running up against the lifetime cap that would be imposed by an insurance company. Health care reform banned those limits. Carol wrote me a very nice letter to say thank you for doing the right thing. Instead of protecting nearly half of nonelderly Americans who have preexisting conditions--such as high blood pressure, diabetes or heart disease--from denial of coverage, repeal would put insurance companies back in the driver's seat, picking and choosing whom to cover. Instead of helping small businesses, struggling in this recession with the cost of insurance premiums, repeal of the affordable care act would take away $40 billion in tax credits that reduce premiums for small businesses. Instead of helping all Americans prevent illness or disease by providing free preventive services such as mammograms and colonoscopies, repeal would allow insurers to charge expensive copays for these important services, thus discouraging people from getting their colonoscopies or mammogram screenings. If we pass this bill--this bill to defund the affordable care act-- Congress will turn its back on America's seniors, tossing our hard-won improvements in Medicare benefits and damaging the program's fiscal health. It would reopen the Medicare Part D doughnut hole, exposing millions of seniors to the full cost of drugs when they need the most assistance. Repealing the affordable care act would increase seniors' drug prices, on average, by more than $800 this year and $3,500 over the next 10 years. Repeal would roll back the unprecedented investment the affordable care act makes in Medicare fraud prevention. Turning back the affordable care act would hurt seniors' access to health care in rural areas by eliminating incentive payments that are in the affordable care act paid to rural primary care providers. Repealing--or defunding, as this bill would do--the affordable care act would roll back improvements to Medicare payment policy, coordination, and efficiency that extends the life of the Medicare trust fund by a decade. In addition, Secretary Sebelius has informed us that payments to Medicare providers would be significantly disrupted by this bill, which again will defund the affordable care act. Finally, we come to the part of this debate even Alice in Wonderland would have a tough time understanding. The House Republicans have played the Washington stage for all it is worth over the last few weeks, making great solemn speeches to the balconies and to the audiences about the deficit and the debt. But as a condition for agreeing to fund the government for the remainder of this year, what are they demanding? They want to defund and, thus, repeal the affordable care act--one of the best and biggest deficit-reducing measures in decades. The Affordable Care Act reduces the deficit by $210 billion in the next 10 years, more than $1 trillion in the next 10 years. Again, here is a chart that shows that. In the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the Affordable Care Act will reduce the deficit by $210 billion. Therefore, if you repeal it you would increase the deficit by $210 billion. Here is where the real savings come. In the next decade the Congressional Budget Office says the Affordable Care Act will reduce the deficit by $1 trillion. So if you defund it, as this bill would do, you will increase the deficit by $1 trillion. That is what the Republicans want, they want to absolutely increase the deficit. They must, because they want to do away with the Affordable Care Act. Let me get this straight. The Republicans are proposing to reduce the deficit by--increasing the deficits? As I said, somehow I have a feeling when I hear that, we are not in Kansas any longer. This is ``Alice in Wonderland'' kind of thinking. We have to stop the silly game. This debate is not about deficit reduction, it is about tearing down health reform, no matter what. No matter if it does increase the deficit, get rid of it, get rid of health reform. It is about giving control back to wealthy, powerful health insurance companies that can raise your rates, deny you benefits, and make increasingly more profit. Nothing makes the nature of the agenda of my friends on the Republican side more clear than the 2012 proposed budget released by the Republican House Budget Committee chairman last week. The Republican budget plan is very simple: a massive transfer of wealth from low-and middle-income Americans to the wealthiest in our country. Two-thirds of the budget savings in the Republican budget proposal come from drastically cutting programs that serve those with modest means, while permanently extending President Bush's tax cuts for the rich. How is this massive wealth shift paid for? They would repeal the majority of the Affordable Care Act, taking coverage away from more than 32 million Americans who would be covered under current law. Starting in 2022, the Republican budget proposal eliminates Medicare as we know it, turning over the program to private health insurance companies. Instead of enrolling seniors in Medicare, the Republicans' plan would give them a voucher to go out and buy private insurance coverage on the open market. Since the voucher would not keep up with rising medical costs, seniors would fall farther and farther behind. The Congressional Budget Office has said this would more than double out-of-pocket costs for seniors entering the program in 2022; it would triple the costs by 2030. Where would that money go? To the private health insurance industry. That sounds kind of familiar, doesn't it? The Republicans' obsession with repealing the new health reform law is not based on budgetary considerations. It is based strictly on ideology. In 1965, President Johnson and this Congress passed Medicare, ensuring seniors access to decent health care. Republicans fought it bitterly then and 45 years later they are still trying to undo it. Here they go again. The choice before us is to go forward or to be dragged backward. Let us come together as a united American people, create a reformed health care system that works not just for the healthy and the wealthy but for all Americans. There is a second bill we will be voting on in conjunction with the budget. The Republicans insisted on this in order to have a vote on the budget. It is equally as misguided and as dangerous, I think, as the other bill. This second bill would prohibit a law-abiding and extraordinarily successful organization from participating in fair competition for Federal funding. This entity would, of course, be Planned Parenthood. Again, let's be clear what this bill is not about. It is not about the need to prevent Federal funds from being used to pay for abortions. Longstanding rules under the title X program already strictly prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. What is more, every appropriations bill for the last two decades has stated that no funds can be used for any abortion. This bill is not about abortion. It is about banning a specific organization from even competing for Federal funds, simply because some people don't agree with that organization. This would create a very disturbing and dangerous precedent. When Congress creates a program, it typically specifies rules or criteria for participation in that program. Anyone who or any organization that agrees to play by these rules and criteria is eligible to compete. Planned Parenthood is playing by the rules. That is one reason it is one of the most widely respected health care providers in the United States. Of 5.2 million women served every year by the title X program, 1 out of 3, 31 percent, receive care at Planned Parenthood health centers. If someone can show me a specific clinic that is not following the rules, by all means take away their funding. But that is not what this bill does. This bill says Planned Parenthood as an entity would be banned from even competing to provide services under title X, despite the fact that they conform to all of the rules of the program. It doesn't only ban Planned Parenthood from offering family planning services. That is one aspect of what Planned Parenthood does. But this bill would turn away nearly 1 million women a year who receive cervical cancer screenings through Planned Parenthood clinical services, as well as 830,000 women every year who get breast exams at Planned Parenthood clinical services. They would turn away countless hundreds of thousands of women and men who receive physical exams and immunizations at Planned Parenthood clinical services. My office has been deluged by e-mails and phone calls from Iowans and other Americans who oppose this misguided effort to ban Planned Parenthood from receiving funding under title X. I stand with them in support of the important services these clinics provide to women and men throughout the country. A constituent of mine writes: Dear Senator Harkin, I want to let you know that cutting funds to Planned Parenthood will jeopardize the lives of many of the women and some of the men who go there for basic reproductive health screenings. I say this with confidence, as Planned Parenthood was the only clinic I could afford 10 years ago, to obtain yearly Pap smears. It was Planned Parenthood that found my cervical cancer and referred me to a specialist for treatment. Due to the existence and actions of Planned Parenthood, I am alive today as a healthy and contributing member of society. I work with undergraduate and graduate students, and several of them have mentioned that Planned Parenthood was their only option for affordable screenings. . . . Please ensure that government funding will be allocated to Planned Parenthood. Please do not have young or socioeconomically strapped women potentially lose their life over a cancer that is remedied when caught in its early stages. That was the end of her letter. We need to listen to voices such as this. We need to listen to the women of America who rely on Planned Parenthood. Finally, I believe this bill goes to the heart of whether we can reach common ground on something on which we should all agree, the need to find ways to reduce the need for abortions in America. Let me say at the outset I strongly believe that we must preserve the right of every woman to her own reproductive choices that exist under the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. But to reduce the number of abortions we must prevent unwanted pregnancies, just as we must also support women who want to carry their pregnancies to term. That is precisely what title X funding accomplishes. Family planning services at title X health centers, including Planned Parenthood, prevent an estimated 973,000 unintended pregnancies a year and this in turn obviates what a woman might turn to in desperation, for hundreds of thousands of abortions every year. Unfortunately, during the debate on Planned Parenthood in recent days we have heard many wild and inaccurate claims about the work of this dedicated organization. On that score, I have always agreed with my former colleague, the late Senator Pat Moynihan, who said, ``People are entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to their own facts.'' Last week our distinguished colleague, the junior Senator from Arizona, stood here on the floor of the Senate and stated that abortion ``is well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does.'' He stated it right here on the Senate floor, the junior Senator from Arizona. Of course that is grossly inaccurate. Planned Parenthood spends the overwhelming majority of its resources keeping women healthy and preventing the need for abortion in the first place. The fact--the fact--is that just 3 percent of Planned Parenthood services are related to abortion. When news organizations asked the office of the Senator from Arizona for evidence of his claim, a spokesperson bizarrely stated: ``His remark was not intended to be a factual statement.'' What was it intended to be? The floor of the Senate is not the place for destructive and false assertions, especially when used to argue that an organization should be redlined and singled out for discrimination. For the record, Planned Parenthood is one of the most respected women's health organizations in the United States. It courageously defends the right of women in America to make informed, independent decisions about their health and family planning. By providing women with counsel and contraception, Planned Parenthood prevents countless unwanted pregnancies and thereby reduces the number of abortions in this country. Lest there be any misunderstanding, I intend this as a factual statement. Let me conclude by making clear that the one certain impact of this bill, if it were passed, would be to increase the number of abortions in America. This bill would dramatically erode the effectiveness of title X in preventing unintended pregnancies, preventing sexually transmitted infections, detecting cancers early, keeping people healthy through quality preventive care. It would have this impact because this misguided bill would ban an extraordinarily successful organization, Planned Parenthood, from providing these services. On this bill we have to say no to unintended pregnancies and unnecessary abortions; say no to this misguided and counterproductive bill. We will have this vote on the budget but then we have these two side votes, one that would defund the Affordable Care Act and send us back to the bad old days of health insurance companies deciding who gets what when at insanely big profits to them; second, it would ban Planned Parenthood from even applying to be a provider of health resources and services to 5.2 million women every year in this country. I hope that Congress, the Senate, will rise above these misguided bills, will rise above unfactual assertions made on the floor of the Senate no matter how they were intended, and that we will make sure Planned Parenthood can continue to provide the vital services it does in this country. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN

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

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today Americans observe Equal Pay Day--the date that marks the extra days that women must work into 2011 in order to equal what men earned in 2010. On this day, I am proud to introduce the Fair Pay Act of 2011, a bill I have introduced every Congress since 1996. In 1963, Congress enacted the Equal Pay Act to end unfair discrimination against women in the workforce. While we have made progress toward this important goal, nearly half a century later, too many women still do not get paid what men do for the same or nearly the same work. On average, a woman makes only 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes. That translates into an average of $400,000 over her lifetime that a woman loses because of unequal pay practices. The circumstances are even worse for Latinas and women of color. This is wrong, it is unjust, and it threatens the economic security of our families. The fact is millions of Americans are dependent on a woman's pay-check just to get by, to put food on the table, pay for child care, and deal with rising health care bills. Two-thirds of mothers bring home at least a quarter of their family's earnings. In many families, a woman is the sole breadwinner. The evidence shows that discrimination accounts for much of the pay gap, and our laws have not done enough to prevent this discrimination from occurring. That is why passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was a critical first step, and why it is important to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, introduced today by Senator Mikulski and Representative DeLauro, of which I am a proud original cosponsor. There are too many loopholes and barriers to effective enforcement of our existing laws. We need to strengthen penalties and give women the tools they need to confront discrimination. At the same time, we must recognize that the problem of unequal pay goes beyond insidious discrimination. As a nation, we unjustly devalue jobs traditionally performed by women, even when they require comparable skills to jobs traditionally performed by men. Today, millions of female-dominated jobs--for example, social workers, teachers, child care workers and nurses--are equivalent in skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions to similar jobs dominated by men. But, the female-dominated jobs pay significantly less. This is inexplicable. Why is a housekeeper worth less than a janitor? Why is a parking meter reader worth less than an electrical meter reader? Why is a social worker worth less than a probation officer? To address this more subtle, deep-rooted discrimination, today I am joining with Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton to introduce the Fair Pay Act, which will ensure that employers provide equal pay for jobs that are equivalent in skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions. This important legislation would also require employers to publicly disclose their job categories and their pay scales, without requiring specific information on individual employees. If we give women information about what their male colleagues are earning, they can negotiate a better deal for themselves in the workplace. Right now, women who believe they are the victim of pay discrimination must file a lawsuit and endure a drawn-out legal discovery process to find out whether they make less than the man working beside them. With pay statistics readily available, this expensive process could be avoided. The number of lawsuits would surely go down if employees could see up front whether they are being treated fairly. In fact, I once asked Lilly Ledbetter: if the Fair Pay Act had been law, would it have averted her wage discrimination case? She said that with the information about pay scales that the bill provides, she would have known that she was a victim of discrimination and could have tried to address the problem sooner, rather than suffering a lifelong drop in her earnings and a trip all the way to the Supreme Court to try to make things right. On this Equal Pay Day, let us make sure that what happened to Lilly never happens again by recommitting to eliminate discrimination in the workplace and make equal pay for equal work a reality. America's working women and the families that rely on them deserve fairness on the job. Hopefully, soon, we can achieve true equality in the workplace so there is no need to commemorate equal pay day any more. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today Americans observe Equal Pay Day--the date that marks the extra days that women must work into 2011 in order to equal what men earned in 2010. On this day, I am proud to introduce the Fair Pay Act of 2011, a bill I have introduced every Congress since 1996. In 1963, Congress enacted the Equal Pay Act to end unfair discrimination against women in the workforce. While we have made progress toward this important goal, nearly half a century later, too many women still do not get paid what men do for the same or nearly the same work. On average, a woman makes only 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes. That translates into an average of $400,000 over her lifetime that a woman loses because of unequal pay practices. The circumstances are even worse for Latinas and women of color. This is wrong, it is unjust, and it threatens the economic security of our families. The fact is millions of Americans are dependent on a woman's pay-check just to get by, to put food on the table, pay for child care, and deal with rising health care bills. Two-thirds of mothers bring home at least a quarter of their family's earnings. In many families, a woman is the sole breadwinner. The evidence shows that discrimination accounts for much of the pay gap, and our laws have not done enough to prevent this discrimination from occurring. That is why passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was a critical first step, and why it is important to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, introduced today by Senator Mikulski and Representative DeLauro, of which I am a proud original cosponsor. There are too many loopholes and barriers to effective enforcement of our existing laws. We need to strengthen penalties and give women the tools they need to confront discrimination. At the same time, we must recognize that the problem of unequal pay goes beyond insidious discrimination. As a nation, we unjustly devalue jobs traditionally performed by women, even when they require comparable skills to jobs traditionally performed by men. Today, millions of female-dominated jobs--for example, social workers, teachers, child care workers and nurses--are equivalent in skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions to similar jobs dominated by men. But, the female-dominated jobs pay significantly less. This is inexplicable. Why is a housekeeper worth less than a janitor? Why is a parking meter reader worth less than an electrical meter reader? Why is a social worker worth less than a probation officer? To address this more subtle, deep-rooted discrimination, today I am joining with Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton to introduce the Fair Pay Act, which will ensure that employers provide equal pay for jobs that are equivalent in skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions. This important legislation would also require employers to publicly disclose their job categories and their pay scales, without requiring specific information on individual employees. If we give women information about what their male colleagues are earning, they can negotiate a better deal for themselves in the workplace. Right now, women who believe they are the victim of pay discrimination must file a lawsuit and endure a drawn-out legal discovery process to find out whether they make less than the man working beside them. With pay statistics readily available, this expensive process could be avoided. The number of lawsuits would surely go down if employees could see up front whether they are being treated fairly. In fact, I once asked Lilly Ledbetter: if the Fair Pay Act had been law, would it have averted her wage discrimination case? She said that with the information about pay scales that the bill provides, she would have known that she was a victim of discrimination and could have tried to address the problem sooner, rather than suffering a lifelong drop in her earnings and a trip all the way to the Supreme Court to try to make things right. On this Equal Pay Day, let us make sure that what happened to Lilly never happens again by recommitting to eliminate discrimination in the workplace and make equal pay for equal work a reality. America's working women and the families that rely on them deserve fairness on the job. Hopefully, soon, we can achieve true equality in the workplace so there is no need to commemorate equal pay day any more. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, there is one point on which every Senator agrees, Democrats and Republicans alike: The economic recovery is starting to gain strength, and it is time to focus our attention on reducing deficits and restoring fiscal discipline. The current deficits are unsustainable and present a very real danger to our Nation's future economic prosperity; however, there is sharp disagreement as to how best to achieve that shared goal. Along with other Democratic Senators, I advocate a balanced approach that includes spending cuts and necessary revenue increases while continuing to make crucial investments in education, infrastructure, and research, the investments that are absolutely essential if we are going to stay competitive in a global economy. We know this approach can work because it is what we did under President Clinton's leadership in the 1990s. That budget at that time created large surpluses and put us on the track to completely eliminating the national debt within a decade. It also created a brief era of shared prosperity with 22 million new jobs and 116 consecutive months of economic expansion. By contrast most Republican Senators favor an approach that I consider to be unbalanced, unfair, and highly unlikely to succeed. We have now had nearly a week to evaluate the House Republicans' budget proposal for 2012 and beyond--the so-called Ryan budget. Let's look at what this truly radical budget plan would do. It completely dismantles Medicare and Medicaid. It concentrates two-thirds of its spending cuts on programs serving the most disadvantaged people in our society, including seniors and people with disabilities, even as it preserves huge subsidies for special interests. It exempts corporations and wealthy individuals from shared sacrifice in order to bring deficits under control. To the contrary, this Republican tea party plan locks in the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy-- tax cuts that were passed 10 years ago when we were looking at budget surpluses as far as the eye could see. Well, under our present circumstances, the wealthy don't need these tax breaks, and we can't afford them. This budget of Mr. Ryan's and Republicans slashes the tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. That is the lowest level since 1931. Indeed, this so-called deficit reduction plan includes tax cuts that would cost $2.9 trillion over the next 10 years compared to the CBO baseline, and that is according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Institute. This tea party budget plan repeals the new health reform law, stripping 34 million nonelderly Americans of health coverage and eliminating all the consumer protections in the law, including the ban on discrimination based on preexisting conditions. This budget of the Republicans repeals the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law, allowing financial manipulators to return to the same reckless practices that led to the financial collapse, to the great recession, and to much of our current huge budget deficits. This budget cuts the maximum Pell grant award even as more students are enrolling in higher education to give themselves the skills they need for the modern economy. How bizarre that several pundits have called this Republican tea party budget plan ``courageous.'' There is nothing courageous about targeting the most vulnerable people in our society for the overwhelming share of cuts. There is nothing courageous about giving another huge tax cut bonanza to those who have seen their incomes skyrocket in recent years. There is nothing courageous about destroying the retirement security of tens of millions of American seniors, including dismantling Medicare and hacking away at Social Security. There is nothing courageous about gutting Medicaid, the program that millions of seniors and people with disabilities depend on to pay for care such as nursing home care or home health aids. Let's be clear. There is nothing courageous in this Republican tea party budget. To the contrary, I suggest it is a cowardly budget. It is a bully's budget. In this budget the powerful and the privilege attack the weak and the vulnerable. We all understand what is going on. Republicans are seizing on the budget crisis as a pretext for ramming through a longstanding ideological wish list. At the State level--in Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, and elsewhere--Republicans are using the budget crisis as a pretext for an assault on public workers, including teachers and firefighters and others. On Capitol Hill they are using it to try to, as I said, defund health care reform, to destroy Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, and, yes, to cut tax rates even more deeply for corporations and the wealthiest in our society. This tea party budget is an unprecedented assault on middle-class and working Americans. It would drive down Americans' standard of living, shred the economic safety net, reduce access to health care and higher education, and do grave damage to our public schools and their ability to prepare the next generation for the jobs of the future. Make no mistake. It is not about reducing budget deficits. Republican Governors and Republicans in Congress are demanding budget cuts to programs on which the middle class rely at the same time they continue to push for tax cuts for large corporations and the wealthy. Call this what it is: Republicans have openly declared class warfare. Republican Governors have the gall to attack teachers, firefighters, police officers, and other public employees as--in the words of Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels--``the privileged elite''--the privileged elite. Our police, our firefighters, our public employees are the privileged elite? Why? Well, I suppose because they actually have pensions. They have decent jobs, decent wages, access to health care. For heaven's sake, we shouldn't be dragging people down because they have a middle- class life. We should be working day and night to give every American a decent standard of living, to shore up the middle class rather than tearing it down. I suppose, to Governor Daniels and others, if the middle class are the privileged elite, then I guess the middle class today are those who are making minimum wage, working at dead-end jobs. Is that the new middle class? Meanwhile, as Republicans at the State and national level go after the health care and retirement security of middle-class Americans-- again, they are going all out to pass new tax breaks for those who have already been showered with tremendous breaks in the past. The tax cuts the congressional Republicans secured in December--that is what was passed in December--will add a whopping $354 billion to the deficit this year and even more next year. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the tax cuts in the new House budget would cost the Treasury $2.9 trillion over 10 years. Yet now these very same Republicans claim they are worried about the deficit. Well, they are not fooling anyone. This is not about deficit reduction, it is about ideology. Republicans are taking a meat ax to programs for the middle class--everything from cancer research to education to transportation to health care--and they are gutting the safety net for the elderly, the poor, and people with disabilities. It is the same old GOP game plan: Give huge, unaffordable tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy while enacting budget cuts that assist the middle class and the most vulnerable. This new tea party Republican budget gives new meaning to the word ``extreme.'' Let's look at what they have proposed. This budget dismantles Medicare, creating a new private voucher program so future seniors would have to pay out of pocket for many lifesaving health care costs. It does nothing to control health care costs. It simply shifts the costs to the elderly individuals. Get this: The Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2030, under the Republican budget plan, seniors would have to pay two-thirds of the cost of their health coverage. Future seniors would see their out-of-pocket costs more than double to $12,500 a year. At the same time, the benefits would be cut in half--in just 20 years. Think about that. People who are now in their forties, looking to when they get on Medicare, will have their benefits cut in half, but they will pay twice as much for it under the voucher system. This tea party Republican budget reopens the prescription drug doughnut hole which we have set in motion to close under the affordable care act. That would require seniors to pay $3,600 a year more for prescription drugs. The Republican tea party block grants Medicaid and cuts $1 trillion in health care services, which would end vital services disabled Americans depend on, such as coverage for home health aides, assistance services so they can get a job, or going to a nursing home if that is the only option. By shifting costs to the States, this would worsen our State budget deficits. The Republican budget proposal doesn't stop at dismantling the safety net and programs seniors rely on for a secure retirement. This budget plan makes profound and destructive cuts to the entire range of programs that underpin the American middle-class standard of living, everything from education, student grants and loans, law enforcement, clean air and clean water, food safety, biomedical research, highways, bridges, and infrastructure--in short, all of the programs and services middle-class Americans rely on for a decent way of life and the promise that enhances the ability of the private sector to grow and provide more jobs. The Republican assault on the middle class is breathtaking both in scope and depth. It could not come at a worse time for working Americans, who are already under enormous strain. It is no secret that people are working harder and longer than ever before, but they still can't seem to meet the cost of basic, everyday needs such as education, transportation, and housing, let alone save enough to support themselves in their old age. Even before the great recession, working people weren't sharing in our Nation's prosperity. The shared prosperity of the years after World War II created an expanding middle class, a soaring standard of living. But these wages-- real wages--peaked in the 1970s, and they have been stagnant ever since. Think about that. They peaked in about 1979. Since 1979, real wages have not gone up. You wonder why middle-class Americans are so upset about what is going on. They realize this. They may not be able to put it in exact language, but I can tell you that middle-class families know what has happened to them. They know they have lost their earning power. Middle-class jobs are also being shipped overseas--a trend actually encouraged by our Tax Code. Income inequality in America is reaching Third-World levels. Job security, savings, and pensions are disappearing, along with the American dream. Now, with working Americans barely making ends meet, just barely holding on to a decent way of life, the Republicans have proposed a budget--make no mistake--that will destroy what is left of the middle class in this country. I could not disagree more strenuously with this approach. The future of our Nation depends on our ability to ensure that everybody benefits from economic growth. It means putting policies into place that build a strong and vibrant middle class with good jobs, fair wages, and good benefits. That is the America I want to see--one where people who work hard and play by the rules can live a decent life. Tragically, the tea party budget plan would take us in exactly the opposite direction. It would gut the whole range of programs that support the middle class in this country. It would dismantle the safety net for those with disabilities and for the poor--a safety net that has been painstakingly created over the last 80 years. This Republican budget plan not only turns the clock back to before the Great Society programs of Pell grants, housing, and support for people in the middle class, it would turn it back to even before the New Deal. It would gut all Federal support that is basic for education. It would all but eliminate Federal support for infrastructure, which means we will fall even further behind China and the European Union, which are investing massively in everything from ultramodern ports, to high-speed rail, to state-of-the-art roads and bridges. Right now, China is investing between 8 and 10 percent of its GDP in infrastructure. We are at 2 percent and going down. Indeed, this tea party budget aims to dismantle the Federal Government as we know it. It proposes to shrink discretionary spending--including defense--and other minor mandatory program spending from 12 percent of GDP last year to 6 percent of GDP in 2022 and to just 3.5 percent of GDP per year in the long run. Think about that. It would shrink discretionary spending and other mandatory spending from 12 percent of the budget last year to about 3.5 percent of the budget over the long run. Well, that is about the same level of Federal spending during the Presidency of Calvin Coolidge, nearly a century ago, when defense spending was very small and there was very little, if any, support for education and the infrastructure of our country. We don't live in the era of Calvin Coolidge any longer, but this budget would take us back to that time. Adding insult to injury, this budget plan makes a mockery of the concept of shared sacrifice to reduce deficits. Apparently, it wasn't enough to bail out the Wall Street bankers whose reckless gambling and risk-taking created the great recession; now we are being asked to cut programs for working Americans so that Wall Street can get another giant tax cut. This Republican tea party budget is built on bad priorities, bad policy, and just plain bad values. As columnist E.J. Dionne points out, Americans can see ``how radical the new conservatives in Washington are, and the extent to which some politicians would transfer even more resources from the have-nots and the have-a-littles to the have-a- lots.'' Going back to the 1930s, the American people have supported and strengthened an unwritten social contract. That social contract says that we will prepare our young, care for our elderly, and build a safety net for those who fall, who become disabled or sick. That unwritten social contract says that if you work hard and play by the rules, you will be able to rise to the middle class or even beyond. That social contract says that if you start at the bottom, you will have a ladder of opportunity to the middle class. It says that a cardinal rule of government is to provide a ladder of opportunity so that every American can realistically aspire to the American dream. But in one fell swoop, this Republican budget rips up that social contract. It replaces it with a winner-takes-all philosophy that tells struggling, aspiring people and communities across America: You are on your own. If you are a low-income high school student who can only afford college with the help of a generous Pell grant, this budget says: Tough luck. You are on your own. If you are a working couple with two kids who can't scrape together enough money to purchase decent health insurance, this budget says: Tough luck. You are on your own. If you are a poor rural community that needs assistance to pay for a new sewer system or a flood control project, this budget says: Tough luck. You are on your own. If you are a poor, urban community struggling to find funding to create high-quality K-12 public schools for your children, this budget says: Tough luck. You are on your own. If you are a retiree with serious health problems and can't afford the big out-of-pocket costs in this Republican plan to do away with Medicare or if your health insurance company abruptly cancels your policy, this budget says: Tough luck. You are on your own. If you are a low-income family who counts on Federal nutrition assistance and you are trying to decide whether to spend scarce dollars on food or medicine, this budget says: Tough luck. You are on your own. Mr. President, this would not be the America we have come to know and love. It is not the kind of America my grandparents and your grandparents or our fathers and mothers built for us and for future generations. It is not the America that built the best middle class history has ever seen. This budget is not the kind of America my friends and neighbors in Iowa would find acceptable. So, mark my words, this budget is not a courageous budget. As I said, it is a cowardly budget, a bully budget. And the American people will not stand for this unwise, unbalanced, unfair assault on their economic security, their way of life, and the America our grandparents and our parents built for us and for future generations. Mr. President, I will oppose with every fiber of my being these grossly, misguided proposals in every way I can. And I can assure you, Mr. President, the American people will not stand for this tea party Republican budget either.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, along with Senator Isakson, today I am introducing a bill to allow veterans with disabilities who utilize service dogs the same access to VA health care and facilities as those using guide dogs. Right now, a vet who has a seeing-eye dog can go into any VA hospital to get services, but it is at the discretion of each facility whether or not to allow a vet to bring a service dog, which they use for mobility, assistance with living with hearing loss, comfort for those experiencing PTSD, and to alert others if they have a seizure. This bill will provide for full access to all veterans at every VA facility, without exception. There should not be a variation in policy from one VA facility to another. It is a small but laudable goal to promote the access of persons with disabilities at VA facilities and guarantee all veterans, regardless of their disability, receive the care and services they need and are entitled to through their selfless service to our Nation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, along with Senator Isakson, today I am introducing a bill to allow veterans with disabilities who utilize service dogs the same access to VA health care and facilities as those using guide dogs. Right now, a vet who has a seeing-eye dog can go into any VA hospital to get services, but it is at the discretion of each facility whether or not to allow a vet to bring a service dog, which they use for mobility, assistance with living with hearing loss, comfort for those experiencing PTSD, and to alert others if they have a seizure. This bill will provide for full access to all veterans at every VA facility, without exception. There should not be a variation in policy from one VA facility to another. It is a small but laudable goal to promote the access of persons with disabilities at VA facilities and guarantee all veterans, regardless of their disability, receive the care and services they need and are entitled to through their selfless service to our Nation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in today's rapidly changing, global knowledge-based economy, making sure that all students graduate from high school is more important than ever. A high school diploma opens the doors to postsecondary education and workforce development programs, which lead to jobs that pay family-sustaining wages. The bottom line is that a high school diploma is no longer an option--it is an essential education credential that all Americans need to have in order to successfully compete in the workforce. Yet, for far too many, a high school diploma is still out of reach. According to researchers at Johns Hopkins University, one out of every three students who enters the ninth grade fails to graduate from high school within 4 years. An estimated 12 million students will drop out of school during the next decade, costing the Nation more than $3 trillion in forgone revenues and increased social service costs. When Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, we required that accountability determinations for high schools include graduation rates. However, the law did not require States to use a common formula for calculating graduation rates nor did it set graduation rate goals for high schools. As a result, states created different calculations that have led to inconsistent and inaccurate reporting of graduation rates. Without transparency, we cannot know the full extent of our Nation's dropout crisis, hold schools accountable, or design effective solutions. That is why I am pleased to introduce the Every Student Counts Act, which my colleague Rep. Bobby Scott will introduce in the House today. This legislation will ensure the accurate calculation and reporting of high school graduation rates, and will hold States, districts, and schools accountable for ensuring that all students graduate with a high school diploma. The Every Student Counts Act builds upon steps taken by all 50 States and the Department of Education to ensure more accurate calculations of and reporting of high school graduation rates. Four years into the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, State leaders recognized the need for consistent graduation rate calculations and governors from all 50 States joined together in 2005 to call for a uniform graduation rate across the States. This leadership from the States was crucial in calling attention to the problem of inaccurate graduation rate calculations and formed the basis for action. In 2008, the U.S. Department of Education built on the governors' laudable work and issued regulations that require states to use a single, accurate graduation rate calculation and to set graduation rate goals and annual growth targets. The 2008 regulations were an important step in the right direction, but they need to be improved and codified so that states, districts, and schools no longer have to rely solely on regulations that could be reversed. The Every Student Counts Act codifies key pieces of the regulations while making improvements where necessary. Specifically, this act sets a uniform graduation rate goal of 90 percent and requires schools that do not meet this goal to improve their graduation rate annually by three percentage points. Additionally, this act builds upon the States' and the Department of Education's graduation rate calculation work by giving credit to schools for students who graduate in more than 4 years through a cumulative graduation rate calculation, while maintaining the expectation that all students graduate within 4 years. This legislation will bring transparency and accountability to schools across the Nation to help them provide all students with the high school diploma they need to have a chance to succeed in postsecondary education and the global economy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in today's rapidly changing, global knowledge-based economy, making sure that all students graduate from high school is more important than ever. A high school diploma opens the doors to postsecondary education and workforce development programs, which lead to jobs that pay family-sustaining wages. The bottom line is that a high school diploma is no longer an option--it is an essential education credential that all Americans need to have in order to successfully compete in the workforce. Yet, for far too many, a high school diploma is still out of reach. According to researchers at Johns Hopkins University, one out of every three students who enters the ninth grade fails to graduate from high school within 4 years. An estimated 12 million students will drop out of school during the next decade, costing the Nation more than $3 trillion in forgone revenues and increased social service costs. When Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, we required that accountability determinations for high schools include graduation rates. However, the law did not require States to use a common formula for calculating graduation rates nor did it set graduation rate goals for high schools. As a result, states created different calculations that have led to inconsistent and inaccurate reporting of graduation rates. Without transparency, we cannot know the full extent of our Nation's dropout crisis, hold schools accountable, or design effective solutions. That is why I am pleased to introduce the Every Student Counts Act, which my colleague Rep. Bobby Scott will introduce in the House today. This legislation will ensure the accurate calculation and reporting of high school graduation rates, and will hold States, districts, and schools accountable for ensuring that all students graduate with a high school diploma. The Every Student Counts Act builds upon steps taken by all 50 States and the Department of Education to ensure more accurate calculations of and reporting of high school graduation rates. Four years into the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, State leaders recognized the need for consistent graduation rate calculations and governors from all 50 States joined together in 2005 to call for a uniform graduation rate across the States. This leadership from the States was crucial in calling attention to the problem of inaccurate graduation rate calculations and formed the basis for action. In 2008, the U.S. Department of Education built on the governors' laudable work and issued regulations that require states to use a single, accurate graduation rate calculation and to set graduation rate goals and annual growth targets. The 2008 regulations were an important step in the right direction, but they need to be improved and codified so that states, districts, and schools no longer have to rely solely on regulations that could be reversed. The Every Student Counts Act codifies key pieces of the regulations while making improvements where necessary. Specifically, this act sets a uniform graduation rate goal of 90 percent and requires schools that do not meet this goal to improve their graduation rate annually by three percentage points. Additionally, this act builds upon the States' and the Department of Education's graduation rate calculation work by giving credit to schools for students who graduate in more than 4 years through a cumulative graduation rate calculation, while maintaining the expectation that all students graduate within 4 years. This legislation will bring transparency and accountability to schools across the Nation to help them provide all students with the high school diploma they need to have a chance to succeed in postsecondary education and the global economy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the responsible leaders in Washington are working hard to find a compromise to fund the government through the end of the year. Regrettably, however, many Republicans in the House-- spurred on by tea party radicals--are still threatening to throw a temper tantrum and shut down the government if they don't get all of their demands. This morning, the Washington Post reports that Speaker John Boehner received an ovation from the Republican caucus when he told them he had directed the House Administration Committee to prepare for a shutdown, as Congressman Mike Pence, former head of the Republican Policy Committee, shouted at a tea party rally last week, ``Shut it down!'' So it seems what we are confronting is kind of a monolithic House driven by the tea party vigilantes, as I refer to them, to brook no compromise. They want it all their way or they are going to shut down the government. Republicans are seizing on the budget crisis as a pretext for ramming through their longstanding ideological wishes. In Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, and elsewhere Republicans are using the budget crisis as the pretext for an assault on public sector unions and their hard-working teachers, firefighters, prison guards, and others. On Capitol Hill Republicans are using this crisis to try to defund health care reform, to gut Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, and, yes, to cut tax rates even more deeply for the wealthiest in our society. This tea party budget is an unprecedented assault on the middle-class and working Americans. It would drive down our American standard of living, shred the economic safety net, reduce access to health care and higher education, and do grave damage to our public schools and our ability to prepare the next generation for the jobs of the future. Let's be clear. This is not about reducing budget deficits. Republican Governors and Republicans in Congress are demanding budget cuts for the middle class. At the same time, they continue to push for tax cuts for large corporations and the wealthy. So call it what it is. Republicans are waging a class warfare in America. Republican Governors have the gall to attack teachers and firefighters, police officers, and other public employees. In the words of Indiana Governor Daniels, he called them ``the privileged elite.'' Think about that. Our teachers, our firefighters, prison guards, and others who are public union members are the privileged elite in our society according to Governor Daniels. Why are they the privileged elite? Well, I guess because they actually have pensions. They actually have access to decent health care, and they are making decent wages with decent working conditions. That is the privileged elite. I guess now the middle class are people who are working for minimum wage at McDonald's, with no health care, no pensions, no retirement, and not enough to support their families. I guess that is the new middle class in America, but the privileged elite are those who have pensions, access to health care, and decent wages. This is the worst kind of demagoguery against loyal and hard-working public servants, our friends, and our neighbors. We shouldn't be dragging people down because they have a middle-class life. We should be working every day to give every American that opportunity. Meanwhile, as the Republicans at the State and national level go after the health care, retirement, and security of middle-class Americans, they are going all out to pass more tax cuts for the wealthy. The Republican Governor in Michigan called for a $1.8 billion cut in corporate taxes. Wisconsin Governor Walker has called for $200 million in cuts. In Congress, just a few months ago, in December, Republicans demanded and got hundreds of billions of dollars in new tax cuts largely, again, for the wealthy. Now, House Republicans--the tea party-driven House Republicans--are demanding we reduce the top tax rate for high earners. Get this, reduce the top tax rate for high earners from 35 percent down to 25 percent, preserving every penny of the tax breaks given to the wealthy back in 2001. All of these tax cut proposals will make deficits far worse. So, again, this whole battle we are talking about is not about deficits. Indeed, the tax cuts congressional Republicans secured in December will add, according to CBO, $354 billion to the deficit just this year and even more next year. Early this year House Republicans voted to repeal the health reform law which would add $210 billion to the deficit over the next decade and over $1 trillion in the decade to follow. Now, again, that is the savings CBO said would come about because of the health reform bill we passed. Yet these same Republican politicians in the House and around the country are claiming to be worried about the deficit. Well, I think this demagoguery is not fooling anyone any longer. It is not about deficit reduction; it is about ideology. Republicans are taking a meat ax to programs for the middle class--everything from cancer research to Pell grants to health care. They are gutting the safety net started and built up over generations, starting with President Franklin Roosevelt. It is the same old Republican game plan: give huge, unaffordable tax cuts to the wealthy and give budget cuts to the middle class and the most vulnerable in our society, including seniors and people with disabilities. This new tea party Republican budget proposal gives new meaning to the word ``extreme.'' Look at what they have proposed. The new budget that has just come out on the House side would basically eliminate Medicare as we know it. It would create a new voucher program with seniors in the future paying out of pocket for many lifesaving health care costs. Estimates are that this would raise premiums and cut benefits of over 25 million seniors. It is a massive giveaway to private insurers, a system that CBO--the Congressional Budget Office--tells us is much more expensive and, we know, less efficient than Medicare. By design these vouchers would not keep up with rising health care costs, so they would lose value every year with seniors paying the difference or ending up uninsured. Again, the assault on Medicare is a transfer of wealth from the middle class to insurance companies and their shareholders, their stockholders. The House budget would reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole requiring seniors to pay $3,600 a year more for prescription drugs. They propose to block grant Medicaid and cut $1 trillion in health care services which would end vital services that seniors and disabled Americans depend on such as coverage for nursing homes or home health agencies by shifting the cost to the States. This would worsen State budget deficits and lead to higher property taxes. Seventeen Governors sent a letter to congressional leaders opposing this, saying it would shift costs and risks to States. States would be forced to bear all costs after hitting the annual cap just as the baby boom generation is entering the retirement years with likely steep increases in their health care and long-term care costs. The ensuing funding shortfall would leave States with an untenable choice between increasing taxes, cutting other State programs or cutting eligibility, benefits or provider payments. That is a letter 17 Governors sent to the President. I remind my colleagues that Republicans complained bitterly in the last Congress when we approved support for the States to maintain health programs for the poor in the recent recession--a level of support the Republicans are now trying to slash in the States. The House budget would put future seniors in the same budget fight, and the Republican budget proposal doesn't stop at dismantling the safety net and programs that the seniors rely on for a secure retirement. It makes profound and destructive cuts to the entire range of programs that underpin the American middle-class standard of living--everything from education, student grants, loans, law enforcement, clean air and clean water, food safety, biomedical research, highways, bridges, and other infrastructure--in short, all the programs and services Americans rely on for a decent way of life. The Republican assault on the middle class is breathtaking, both in the scope and in its depth. It cannot come at a worse time for working Americans, who are already under enormous strain and fear that the American dream is slipping away. It is no secret people are working longer and harder than ever before, but they still can't meet the cost of basic, everyday needs such as education, transportation, housing, and health care, let alone put away enough money to support themselves in old age. Even before the great recession, during boom times, working people weren't sharing in our Nation's prosperity. Real wages peaked in the 1970s, and they have not moved since. Think about this. Real wages, accounting for inflation, are about where they were in 1979. Think about that. The middle class in America has not made any headway since 1979. We wonder why people are upset. They see the middle class way of life slipping away from them and their children. I don't think we can say the wealthiest 400 or 500 people in America are at the same place they were in 1979--not at all. In fact, in the mid-1970s, the top 1 percent of Americans, in terms of wealth, had about $8 trillion in assets. Today, that same 1 percent has over $40 trillion in assets. It is not the same as where they were in 1979. The top 1 percent has seen their income soar. Last Friday, our colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse, was on the floor, and he had some very startling statistics. He pointed out that the 400 highest income earners in America earn an average of $344 million a year. Got that? They earn an average of $344 million a year, and they paid an effective tax of 16.7 percent. The average person working around here--the police we see here, the janitors, the food service workers, and others in the Capitol--do you know what they pay? They are probably paying 29, 30 percent of their income in taxes. But the 400 highest income earners only paid 16.7 percent. We wonder why people think things aren't quite on the up and up or quite fair. Do you detect people who are just kind of feeling uneasy about where this country is headed? People are profoundly anxious about the future, but look at what the House Republicans are doing. They are going to make it worse on the middle class. People are worried they will not be able to have a decent house or enough food for their families or pay for their kids' college education. People are working harder, and they don't even take vacations any longer because they can't afford it. If we learned anything from the great recession, it is that most families, even though solidly in the middle class, are one pink slip away from economic catastrophe. Everybody keeps talking about a recovery. Many of our friends and neighbors aren't seeing that. Corporate America is sitting on over $1 trillion in cash, while 14 million Americans are out of work. That is just the official number. That is not counting another 15 million who are underemployed or who have quit looking for jobs because they have been shut out of the job market. This doesn't look like a real recovery to me. It is a repeat of the last recession, when the recovery went to the wealthiest and the working people were left behind. Republicans have proposed a budget that will destroy the middle class in this country. That is what the Republican budget is about. Many Republicans apparently believe that as public sector workers and others lose their jobs, it will be somehow good for the economy. Two weeks ago, the Republican staff on the Joint Economic Committee released a report arguing that widespread layoffs would actually increase jobs. How about that for funny reasoning? As Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman pointed out, this is a throwback to the thinking of Depression-era Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, the idea that by driving down wages and benefits, we will increase employment. This is now ``the official doctrine of the GOP,'' he points out. If we drive down wages and benefits, we will somehow increase employment. I suppose we could. I suppose if we got everybody down to working for $1 an hour, there might be a lot of jobs out there. The idea is not a job. It is not just having someone work. The idea is to have a good job. I have pointed out in speeches in the past that, when we think about it, in our sordid history of America, every slave had a job. Think about that. Every slave had a job. Were they free? Were they happy? Did they keep their families together? Were they able to build up a middle-class nest egg? Did they have decent retirement and health care? No. But they had a job. Is that all we are after is just a job? It seems to me that we are after jobs that pay decent wages, with decent working conditions, and allow people to have time with their kids and their families. What is wrong with having a job that has a decent wage and decent working conditions and you get to take a decent vacation and you have health care coverage and you have a pension for your old age? What is wrong with that kind of a job? These are the kinds of jobs we want for Americans--not just a job. But the Republican philosophy seems to be just a job. Forget about the pension and your standard of living, just be thankful that you have a minimum-wage job. That is where this Republican budget is driving us. I could not help but think about this in terms of what is happening in the world--in Libya and what happened in Egypt and in Syria and in Yemen and what is happening in other places around the globe. When stripped away from all of it, it seems to me that in all these countries, people are saying we have had enough of a system where a few at the top get everything and nobody else gets anything and we are all at the bottom. In so many of these countries, these revolutions are going on so people can have a more decent life, a better share, if you will, of the products of their own society. So they are going in the direction of trying to establish a better middle class, a stronger middle class. What are we doing in America, the bastion of middle-class virtues. We are going in the other direction. We are destroying the middle class, taking away the kinds of livelihoods that built the middle class. That is what this is about. The future of our Nation depends on our ability to ensure that the benefits from economic growth are widely shared. That means putting policies into place that build a strong and vibrant middle class, with good jobs, fair wages, and good benefits. That is the America I want to see, one where people who work hard and play by the rules can have a decent life. Tragically, the tea party budget plan would take us in exactly the opposite direction. It would gut the whole range of programs that support the middle class in our country. It would dismantle the safety net that has been built for seniors, those with disabilities and the low income--a safety net created under President Roosevelt and has been strengthened since. The Republican tea party budget is built on bad priorities, bad policies, and just plain bad values. As columnist E.J. Dionne points out, Americans can now see ``how radical the new conservatives in Washington are, and the extent to which some politicians would transfer even more resources from the have-nots and the have-a-littles to the have-a-lots.'' I don't believe the American people will stand for this unwise, unbalanced, unfair assault on their economic security and their way of life. We must stand strong and oppose these grossly misguided proposals in every way we possibly can. This is a battle that is joined and we cannot be faint of heart or weak in spirit. We must stand strong for middle-class values and what allowed America to become a strong middle- class nation. I believe the American people are definitely on our side in this battle. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

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

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, ensuring that all students, regardless of background or ability, receive an education that gives them the opportunity to live a successful and fulfilling life has always been a major focus of my career in public service. To achieve this goal, I have fought especially hard for students with disabilities to have access to the general education curriculum and the services and supports they need to succeed, and to safeguard their rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. That is why I am pleased to introduce the IDEA Fairness Restoration Act, which my colleague Rep. Van Hollen will also be introducing in the House today. This critical legislation will remove the financial barrier that families, especially low- and middle-income families, face as they pursue their children's rights to the free, appropriate public education they deserve and are entitled to under the Fourteenth Amendment. When Congress originally passed IDEA, we recognized the vital importance of parent and school collaboration in special education and required they jointly develop an Individualized Education Plan, IEP, to identify goals to promote the academic achievement of students with disabilities. In general, this partnership has served students well. There are, however, times when schools have not fulfilled their responsibilities to provide an appropriate education. In these cases, IDEA provides parents the right to challenge the schools through mediation and due process. To make their argument, families often need access to expert witnesses who can assess the student's needs and testify about whether the current IEP meets those needs. These expert witnesses are a resource that many families cannot afford, but without access to them, families may be unable to make their case. When Congress amended IDEA in 1986, it recognized the financial barriers that parents face in pursuing due process to resolve disagreements with their school and specified in the Conference Committee Report that when the court finds in favor of the parents a judge could award attorney's fees, including ``reasonable expenses and fees of expert witnesses and the reasonable costs of any test or evaluation which is found to be necessary for the preparation of the parent or guardian's case.'' For years, parents who prevailed in judicial proceedings were awarded these fees, as Congress intended. But in 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Arlington Central School District v. Murphy that courts could no longer award these fees because Congress made its intention explicit in the Conference Report rather than in statute. As a result, many parents are discouraged and even prevented from pursuing meritorious cases to secure the rights of their children. Low- and middle-income families are particularly hard hit. This IDEA Fairness Restoration Act clarifies Congress' express intent that parents should recover expert witness fees, as they currently can do with attorneys' fees, if they prove that the school system has wrongfully denied their child an appropriate education as defined by IDEA. By including ``reasonable expenses and fees of expert witnesses and the reasonable costs of any test or evaluation which is found to be necessary for the preparation of the parent or guardian's case'' and reestablishing the right of judges to award such fees to parents who prevail in IDEA cases, as Congress intended, this legislation will level the playing field and restore the ability of low- and middle- income parents to be effective advocates for their children's educational needs. This legislation is an essential step for protecting the rights of students with disabilities and ensuring that all families, regardless of their financial resources, can advocate for and protect their children's rights through due process.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, ensuring that all students, regardless of background or ability, receive an education that gives them the opportunity to live a successful and fulfilling life has always been a major focus of my career in public service. To achieve this goal, I have fought especially hard for students with disabilities to have access to the general education curriculum and the services and supports they need to succeed, and to safeguard their rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. That is why I am pleased to introduce the IDEA Fairness Restoration Act, which my colleague Rep. Van Hollen will also be introducing in the House today. This critical legislation will remove the financial barrier that families, especially low- and middle-income families, face as they pursue their children's rights to the free, appropriate public education they deserve and are entitled to under the Fourteenth Amendment. When Congress originally passed IDEA, we recognized the vital importance of parent and school collaboration in special education and required they jointly develop an Individualized Education Plan, IEP, to identify goals to promote the academic achievement of students with disabilities. In general, this partnership has served students well. There are, however, times when schools have not fulfilled their responsibilities to provide an appropriate education. In these cases, IDEA provides parents the right to challenge the schools through mediation and due process. To make their argument, families often need access to expert witnesses who can assess the student's needs and testify about whether the current IEP meets those needs. These expert witnesses are a resource that many families cannot afford, but without access to them, families may be unable to make their case. When Congress amended IDEA in 1986, it recognized the financial barriers that parents face in pursuing due process to resolve disagreements with their school and specified in the Conference Committee Report that when the court finds in favor of the parents a judge could award attorney's fees, including ``reasonable expenses and fees of expert witnesses and the reasonable costs of any test or evaluation which is found to be necessary for the preparation of the parent or guardian's case.'' For years, parents who prevailed in judicial proceedings were awarded these fees, as Congress intended. But in 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Arlington Central School District v. Murphy that courts could no longer award these fees because Congress made its intention explicit in the Conference Report rather than in statute. As a result, many parents are discouraged and even prevented from pursuing meritorious cases to secure the rights of their children. Low- and middle-income families are particularly hard hit. This IDEA Fairness Restoration Act clarifies Congress' express intent that parents should recover expert witness fees, as they currently can do with attorneys' fees, if they prove that the school system has wrongfully denied their child an appropriate education as defined by IDEA. By including ``reasonable expenses and fees of expert witnesses and the reasonable costs of any test or evaluation which is found to be necessary for the preparation of the parent or guardian's case'' and reestablishing the right of judges to award such fees to parents who prevail in IDEA cases, as Congress intended, this legislation will level the playing field and restore the ability of low- and middle- income parents to be effective advocates for their children's educational needs. This legislation is an essential step for protecting the rights of students with disabilities and ensuring that all families, regardless of their financial resources, can advocate for and protect their children's rights through due process.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the FIT Kids Act. That first word, FIT, an acronym for Fitness Integrated with Teaching, an important concept that I am proud to promote today. The FIT Kids Act encourages schools to provide children with quality physical education in an effort to promote health and wellness throughout their lives. Since the 1970s, the incidence of obesity has more than doubled for preschool children aged 2-5 years and for young people aged 12-19 years; for children aged 6-11 years, it has more than tripled. Since there are many reasons for this public health crisis, we know that addressing it will require multiple solutions. An important place we can address childhood obesity is in our schools. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that fewer than 10 percent of our public schools offer daily physical education for the entire school year for all students. Let me repeat that, fewer than 10 percent. Our kids deserve better. Research has shown that physical education not only promotes health and wellness, it also has a direct correlation with kids' academic performance in school. The FIT Kids Act would amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to shine a light on the availability of quality physical education for all public school children through grade 12, and to ensure they receive important health and nutritional information. As Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, I have been working in a bipartisan way with my colleagues on the committee to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. With the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we must fix the things that are not working, while protecting the goals of the bill, including narrowing achievement gaps. It is truly alarming to see the discrepancies in achievement between children in the United States and children abroad. Here in the U.S., despite making some progress, we continue to have wide and persistent achievement gaps that are leaving behind children of color, young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, and children with disabilities. In addition to achievement gaps, I am also concerned about the trends in physical education in schools across the Nation. Currently, schools are decreasing the amount of free play or physical activity that children engage in during school hours. Only about one-third of elementary children have daily physical education, and less than one- fifth have extracurricular physical activity programs at their schools. I know that difficult resource decisions have to be made but we cannot short-change our children's health. This is short-sighted for two big reasons: One, we are fighting a childhood obesity epidemic of frightening proportions. And, two, as research shows, and as any teacher or parent knows, kids have to have time to play and burn off energy if they are going to be in a proper frame of mind to learn. The association between physical activity and academic achievement is an important part of why we need to continue to support physical education. Broad evidence suggests a positive relationship between physical activity and grade point average, rate of learning, memory, attention span, and classroom behavior, as well as cognitive, social, and motor skill development. Research indicates that youth who report engaging in physical activity at school are 20 percent more likely than their less active peers to earn good grades in math or English. Furthermore, data suggests that children who are overweight have greater risk for school absenteeism than their peers who are average weight. In order for our Nation's children to be successful students, we must do all that we can to ensure they are in school and ready to learn. This legislation will ensure that parents receive critical information regarding the time and resources devoted to their children for a quality physical education. Specifically, the bill will require schools, local educational agencies, and state educational agencies to publicly report on the quantity and quality of physical education courses provided using nationally recognized guidelines and standards. This will give parents the information they need to assess whether their children are receiving an appropriate physical education. Furthermore, the FIT Kids Act would give parents the tools necessary to encourage and support a healthy and active lifestyle, including increased physical activity during and outside the school day, and nutritious eating habits both at home and at school. In addition, the bill promotes professional development for teachers and school principals to promote healthy lifestyles and physical activity through evidence-based curricula, and thereby boost students' ability to learn more effectively. The bill also promotes physical activity in after-school programs and amends the school counseling program to take into account both students' emotional wellbeing and their physical wellbeing. Finally, this legislation authorizes research on the ways physical activity can be incorporated into all aspects of the school day, the impact of physical activity on students' readiness to learn, and the best ways to measure student progress in increasing physical activity. The FIT Kids Act shines a spotlight on children's health and how our schools can play a greater role in teaching our children healthy behaviors. As we move forward in reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we cannot neglect the importance of proper physical education. We know that sedentary lifestyles that begin in childhood can lead to number of major chronic diseases that affect their health and wellbeing in adulthood. Accordingly, we owe it to American students to teach them healthy behaviors and the importance of physical activity, and how these lessons will benefit them throughout their lives. The FIT Kids Act provides the framework to accomplish this. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the FIT Kids Act. That first word, FIT, an acronym for Fitness Integrated with Teaching, an important concept that I am proud to promote today. The FIT Kids Act encourages schools to provide children with quality physical education in an effort to promote health and wellness throughout their lives. Since the 1970s, the incidence of obesity has more than doubled for preschool children aged 2-5 years and for young people aged 12-19 years; for children aged 6-11 years, it has more than tripled. Since there are many reasons for this public health crisis, we know that addressing it will require multiple solutions. An important place we can address childhood obesity is in our schools. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that fewer than 10 percent of our public schools offer daily physical education for the entire school year for all students. Let me repeat that, fewer than 10 percent. Our kids deserve better. Research has shown that physical education not only promotes health and wellness, it also has a direct correlation with kids' academic performance in school. The FIT Kids Act would amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to shine a light on the availability of quality physical education for all public school children through grade 12, and to ensure they receive important health and nutritional information. As Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, I have been working in a bipartisan way with my colleagues on the committee to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. With the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we must fix the things that are not working, while protecting the goals of the bill, including narrowing achievement gaps. It is truly alarming to see the discrepancies in achievement between children in the United States and children abroad. Here in the U.S., despite making some progress, we continue to have wide and persistent achievement gaps that are leaving behind children of color, young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, and children with disabilities. In addition to achievement gaps, I am also concerned about the trends in physical education in schools across the Nation. Currently, schools are decreasing the amount of free play or physical activity that children engage in during school hours. Only about one-third of elementary children have daily physical education, and less than one- fifth have extracurricular physical activity programs at their schools. I know that difficult resource decisions have to be made but we cannot short-change our children's health. This is short-sighted for two big reasons: One, we are fighting a childhood obesity epidemic of frightening proportions. And, two, as research shows, and as any teacher or parent knows, kids have to have time to play and burn off energy if they are going to be in a proper frame of mind to learn. The association between physical activity and academic achievement is an important part of why we need to continue to support physical education. Broad evidence suggests a positive relationship between physical activity and grade point average, rate of learning, memory, attention span, and classroom behavior, as well as cognitive, social, and motor skill development. Research indicates that youth who report engaging in physical activity at school are 20 percent more likely than their less active peers to earn good grades in math or English. Furthermore, data suggests that children who are overweight have greater risk for school absenteeism than their peers who are average weight. In order for our Nation's children to be successful students, we must do all that we can to ensure they are in school and ready to learn. This legislation will ensure that parents receive critical information regarding the time and resources devoted to their children for a quality physical education. Specifically, the bill will require schools, local educational agencies, and state educational agencies to publicly report on the quantity and quality of physical education courses provided using nationally recognized guidelines and standards. This will give parents the information they need to assess whether their children are receiving an appropriate physical education. Furthermore, the FIT Kids Act would give parents the tools necessary to encourage and support a healthy and active lifestyle, including increased physical activity during and outside the school day, and nutritious eating habits both at home and at school. In addition, the bill promotes professional development for teachers and school principals to promote healthy lifestyles and physical activity through evidence-based curricula, and thereby boost students' ability to learn more effectively. The bill also promotes physical activity in after-school programs and amends the school counseling program to take into account both students' emotional wellbeing and their physical wellbeing. Finally, this legislation authorizes research on the ways physical activity can be incorporated into all aspects of the school day, the impact of physical activity on students' readiness to learn, and the best ways to measure student progress in increasing physical activity. The FIT Kids Act shines a spotlight on children's health and how our schools can play a greater role in teaching our children healthy behaviors. As we move forward in reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we cannot neglect the importance of proper physical education. We know that sedentary lifestyles that begin in childhood can lead to number of major chronic diseases that affect their health and wellbeing in adulthood. Accordingly, we owe it to American students to teach them healthy behaviors and the importance of physical activity, and how these lessons will benefit them throughout their lives. The FIT Kids Act provides the framework to accomplish this. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.