[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 172 (Thursday, November 10, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7346-S7358]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                        2012--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the next vote will be on cloture on the 
motion to proceed to the energy and water appropriations bill. That 
will be the last vote of the day. There will be no votes on Friday or 
Monday. There will be debate on this measure on which in a few minutes 
we hope to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed. Debate will begin 
Monday afternoon. Senators Feinstein and Alexander are the managers of 
that bill. We will start that on Monday. There will be a vote Tuesday 
morning on a judge. So have a good

[[Page S7347]]

break, and we feel pretty good about the work we have gotten done this 
week.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 157, H.R. 2354, an act making 
     appropriations for energy and water development and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and 
     for other purposes.
         Harry Reid, Amy Klobuchar, Dianne Feinstein, Patrick J. 
           Leahy, Richard J. Durbin, John F. Kerry, Charles E. 
           Schumer, Al Franken, Tom Udall, Richard Blumenthal, 
           Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Carl Levin, Jeff Merkley, Ron 
           Wyden, Thomas R. Carper, Daniel K. Inouye, Benjamin L. 
           Cardin.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to H.R. 2354, an act making appropriations for energy 
and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a 
close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and 
the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and 
the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 81, nays 14, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 205 Leg.]

                                YEAS--81

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--14

     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Heller
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     Paul
     Risch
     Rubio
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Hutchison
     Inouye
     McCain
     Nelson (FL)
     Sessions
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 81, the nays are 
14. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
after my remarks of no more than 12 minutes, that Senator Coburn be 
recognized for up to 15 minutes, and then Senator Harkin be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Ohio's Election Results

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, on Tuesday, Ohio, my State, made 
history. Overwhelmingly, Ohio voters made a simple choice between what 
is right and what is wrong. They answered the question at the heart of 
any election: Whose side are you on?
  Tuesday, Ohioans showed they stood with teachers and firefighters, 
with police officers and nurses and librarians, and other public 
workers and the middle class. They showed they want leaders focused on 
creating jobs rather than taking potshots at people who teach, who plow 
our roads, who guard our prisons, who teach our children, and who 
safeguard our public health. They showed they are ready to rebuild what 
was once a national consensus: that our Nation's strength is rooted in 
the strength of our middle class.
  There used to be a consensus among educators and elected officials, 
community leaders, and business leaders that our economy is designed to 
build a strong middle class, to help people become part of that middle 
class. We used to see that consensus on Medicare and Pell grants, on 
civil rights and women's rights, on tax and economic policy, and we 
used to have that consensus on collective bargaining rights.
  Rights earned at the bargaining table provide a path to the middle 
class for millions of workers who belong to unions and millions of 
workers who do not belong to unions. Collective bargaining is the tool 
we have had in this country for three-quarters of a century for labor 
and management relations in a democracy. Collective bargaining has 
helped minimize strikes and work stoppages because it allows a process 
where people sit down at a table, talk to one another, disagree, come 
to agreement, come to a consensus, a process to resolve disputes.
  In Ohio, balanced budgets and collective bargaining have coexisted 
for nearly three decades. Collective bargaining not only strengthens 
middle-class jobs, it protects public health, and it protects community 
safety. During the passage of the legislation called S. 5 earlier this 
year, which was rammed through the legislature by the Republican 
Governor and the Republican majority in the House and Senate, even 
though a number of Republicans dissented on it, I had a roundtable in a 
church right on Capitol Square in Columbus.
  A young teacher said to me from the Columbus suburbs: You know, when 
I sit at the bargaining table and bargain on behalf of my teachers, I 
do not just bargain for better wages and higher and better pensions and 
health care. She said: I also bargain for class size because I know my 
colleagues can teach better and students can learn better if class 
sizes are smaller.
  Then a police officer said: When I bargain, I not only bargain for 
better wages, of course, and better benefits for my members, the 
Fraternal Order of Police, I also bargain for safety vests because it 
matters to me that the men and women who wear the badge work in the 
safest possible conditions.
  But somewhere along the way we lost this consensus that we once had 
in this country. From what we have seen at statehouses across the 
country, you would think teachers and nurses, you would think 
sanitation workers and firefighters, you would think police officers 
and librarians caused the fiscal crisis and the budget deficit.
  We hear Governors around the country, we hear Washington pundits talk 
about the privileged class of public sector workers. Now who is playing 
class warfare, when, in fact, they go after public workers to the point 
that I have heard young teachers tell me--and I have heard parents who 
have kids in college at Bowling Green or Akron U or University of 
Toledo or Xavier say: You know, my daughter or my son were going to be 
teachers. But I am not sure they want to be with the attacks that the 
Governor and conservative politicians have made against teachers.
  So who are these privileged elite who have been attacked by 
conservative politicians? They are the people who clear snow off our 
streets. They are the people who run into burning buildings to save 
people and property. They are the people who teach our children. So 
let's be clear. It was recklessness on Wall Street that caused the 
financial crisis, not teachers, not librarians, not mental health 
counselors, not sanitation workers, not cafeteria workers at Mansfield 
Senior High. It is a crisis made worse by our Nation's economic tilt 
away from manufacturing.
  Thirty years ago, more than 25 percent of the GDP in our country was 
in manufacturing. Only about 10 percent was financial services. That 
has almost flipped now. Financial services is about one-quarter of our 
GDP, and manufacturing is only 10 or 11 percent. You know what it has 
done in your home State of Missouri, Madam President, what this means 
for middle-class workers. We have moved far too much into

[[Page S7348]]

financial services because of government policy and far too much away 
from manufacturing.
  States face budget crises because people do not have jobs--do not 
have these good-paying jobs and cannot pay taxes, so the revenue does 
not come. Yet instead of a balanced approach to State fiscal problems, 
we have had an ideologically motivated approach to destroy collective 
bargaining.
  In the elections last year in my State, 1 year ago this week, there 
was a sweep, as there was in some other States, of Republicans all 
saying: Put us in office and we will fix this problem with all of the 
lost jobs. They won, in large part, because of lost jobs. That is what 
elections are about. Yet almost from the beginning, the Governor and 
the radicals in the legislature in my State did not do a lot about 
jobs. What they did a lot of was attacking collective bargaining 
rights. They attacked women's rights. They attacked voting rights.
  That is not what we should be doing. We should be working together in 
job creation. They seem, in many ways, more interested in payback than 
in progress. That is not shared sacrifice. As the middle class didn't 
happen on its own, it will not unravel on its own either.
  Tuesday, Ohioans took an important step in protecting the very rights 
of collective bargaining that people of all stripes in our country have 
enjoyed for 75, 80, 85 years. It is an important step in protecting the 
very collective bargaining right that created our middle class.
  Our mission is to continue to build a strong middle class and help 
people become part of the middle class. It is about creating jobs and 
fairness. For too long there has been class warfare in this country, 
waged from the top, aimed at the middle class. When the wealthiest 
people in this country continue to do better and better, and the wide 
swath of people in the middle--70 to 90 percent--have barely had a pay 
increase in 10 years, you know that is what happened. They love to say 
that our side commits class warfare. What has happened is they have 
committed the class warfare, we are just pointing it out. The class 
warfare they have committed has been class warfare waged from the top 
and aimed at the middle class.
  That is a big reason we have seen this decline in the middle class. 
Tuesday, this week, Ohio pushed back, and we will continue to do so 
because this Nation is exceptional, because of our continued struggle 
to form a more perfect union, where opportunity grows and expands for 
all. It is not restricted to a privileged few. We do so because we are 
a nation and my State is a State that speaks more loudly and fights 
harder and stands up for the dignity and the honor of fair play.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
Senator Harkin, the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Isakson, be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Medicare and You

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, myself and Senator Barrasso are two of the 
three doctors in the Senate. Both of us have practiced for over 25 
years. We have put out several reports. Every year, Medicare recipients 
receive a message from Medicare, called ``Medicare and You.'' What we 
thought we would do is come to the floor and tell our colleagues, as 
well as the American people, that we also put out a ``Medicare and 
You'' report. There is a lot that wasn't in the ``Medicare and You'' 
report this year.
  I ask unanimous consent to have a colloquy between myself and the 
Senator from Wyoming, Dr. Barrasso, as to what we are reporting in our 
Medicare and You statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. This booklet, which will be available on 
coburn.senate.gov and barrasso.senate.gov to every Medicare patient out 
there, explains what has actually happened to Medicare in the last year 
and a half. It explains that $530 billion has been cut out of Medicare. 
It explains the physician reimbursement cuts were not addressed when we 
addressed health care and, consequently, a 27-percent cut is coming if 
Congress doesn't change that.
  It explains that Medicare Advantage--both the options and the number 
of people eligible for that--has been taken away by the Affordable Care 
Act. It explains that the CLASS Act was put in to save money, but it 
won't, and it has now been abandoned by the administration. The fact is 
there is an independent payment advisory board, whose sole purpose is 
to cut payments for Medicare procedures and supplies and drugs to save 
money--even when that will instigate the loss of available drugs.
  Finally, it creates a $10 billion trust fund for an innovation center 
that is a smokescreen for a rationing board very similar to the IPAB.
  I want Dr. Barrasso to go over the Medicare cuts now, if he will.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I congratulate and thank Dr. Coburn for 
his significant leadership in this area. Medicare patients all across 
the country are getting a thick book--150 pages or so. In Wyoming, it 
is about 150 pages, and it is called ``Medicare and You, 2012.''
  Under Dr. Coburn's leadership, we have prepared a report, also called 
``Medicare and You, 2012,'' but it is, as I do week after week, a 
second opinion about the big book people are getting at home. The cover 
is quite distinct from the book that goes to other Medicare patients 
around the country, because this starts by saying ``Your Medicare 
Program was cut $530 billion by President Obama's controversial health 
care law and used for a brand new program for someone else.''
  That is the fundamental problem here. When we talk about Medicare, we 
think of our parents and others, and I think of so many of my patients 
on Medicare. We need to strengthen Medicare. What this administration 
did by taking $530 billion from the health care law has not 
strengthened Medicare; it devastated Medicare and our seniors on 
Medicare to the point where the Medicare Actuary said the funding will 
be exhausted by 2016--5 years from now. We go through that in this 
report.
  My concern is that my patients and Dr. Coburn's patients will see 
their health care impacted by a denial of care, by care being refused 
because of the limitations within the law and the significant impact on 
physicians, hospitals, nursing homes, hospices, and home health 
agencies, which are a lifeblood for seniors, all as a result of what we 
have seen passed and signed into law by this President.
  It is interesting, because we recently heard from the Senator from 
Ohio, who talked about the vote in Ohio on Tuesday. What was not 
brought up is that there was another ballot initiative specifically 
related to the Obama health care law. Those same people he was praising 
so much also voted by 2 to 1--a margin of over a million voters--that 
they did not want the Obama health care mandate to apply to them. This 
is no surprise, and the popularity of this health care plan has 
continued to fall ever since it was signed into law.
  I ask my colleague, Dr. Coburn, about some of the issues that will 
impact not just the patients through the payment mechanism but their 
ability to see a doctor under this Medicare change.
  Mr. COBURN. The other thing Medicare recipients should recognize is 
that under the laws as previously set, the reimbursement for your 
physician in January is scheduled to decline 27 percent. When I talk to 
seniors in the State of Oklahoma, one of the No. 1 problems that 
somebody turning 65 has is now finding that physician who will care for 
them under the Medicare payment guidelines. What was never spoken of 
was the fact that there was no fix in the health care bill for the very 
real need to attract more physicians into caring for seniors.
  As we have seen, Congress may or may not fix that--it is $300 billion 
to fix that. That is the cost of it. Whether we fix it or not, the fact 
is we are playing with the access of Medicare patients to care. Denied 
access is denied care.
  If you live in a community much like mine where no new doctors have 
been coming in because there is a shortage of primary care doctors, and 
those who do come in will not take the lower reimbursement for Medicare 
because they cannot afford to, it may mean that you have to drive 70 
miles to get that care. That is not access, and it is

[[Page S7349]]

not health care. It means you don't have available health care because 
the government runs the program so poorly.
  Let me finish up, since we don't want to go over our time. The other 
thing I want to talk about for a minute is this innovation center. In 
the health care law, we set aside a $10 billion slush fund for 
innovation in payment and procedures for Medicare patients. We are 
going to be spending $10 billion to figure out how to pay for it more 
cheaply and limit the combinations, or increase the combinations of 
combining these things so that the reimbursements are less.
  First of all, I don't understand why it is going to take $10 billion, 
but it is a slush fund. No. 2 is that if you don't like the results of 
that, there is nothing we can do about it except reverse the Affordable 
Care Act, Obamacare. No. 2, you can't sue. You have no injunctive 
relief. You have no opportunity to express your desire in a court 
of law or through an administrative procedure to challenge their 
elimination of paying for certain procedures that may in fact save the 
country money but may in fact also hurt the very patients who are on 
Medicare.

  We have this fund that we cannot find out anything about; no rules 
have been put out on it, and we cannot find the details of it. Yet, we 
know what the purpose of the fund is. It is like the IPAB fund. It is 
designed to ration the care that seniors need to control the cost of 
Medicare.
  What do we know about Medicare? One dollar of every three dollars 
spent on Medicare doesn't help anybody get well and doesn't keep 
anybody from getting sick. The reason it doesn't work is because of the 
government's mandate--we have all these stories about shortages of 
drugs. The reason there are shortages of drugs in our country is 
because Medicare has mandated prices 90 percent of the time so low that 
we only have one supplier. Some of them either have a technical problem 
or have decided to stop making a drug that is critical to our seniors 
because we have a price control bureaucracy.
  There are large problems with the Medicare law. They need to be 
recognized and addressed. They need to be fixed, and the last thing we 
ought to do is spend $10 billion figuring out how not to get somebody 
treatment, or lessen the availability of treatment through the 
innovation council.
  I yield the rest of my time to the Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. We have talked about this. There is a program that his 
patients and mine have enjoyed, called Medicare Advantage, and there is 
an advantage for patients signing up for that program. About one in 
four Americans on Medicare signs up for Medicare Advantage. The 
advantages of this program are that it coordinates care, works with 
preventive care. Yet, the President has targeted that for elimination. 
By 2017, half of the people on this program, who say they like and have 
it, will no longer be eligible to participate in it because of this 
health care law. We explain that to the American people in our second 
opinion on ``Medicare and You.''
  Finally, Dr. Coburn talked about the IPAB, the Independent Payment 
Board. It is a rationing board to me, a board designed to deny and 
refuse care. These are unelected bureaucrats. They don't need to have a 
medical background or don't necessarily need to see patients. It is 
specifically related to cutting the amount of money that is paid for 
patients to have procedures, to see physicians, and to get the care 
they need, which is why there is great concern throughout this country 
and why the President's health care law becomes more unpopular every 
day.
  Mr. COBURN. If the Senator will yield for a moment, one of the 
reasons our cancer cure rates are a third better than England is 
because we don't have an IPAB and they do. The No. 1 reason survival 
rates from cancer in England are lower is because treatments are denied 
by their IPAB for the best treatments, which will save more people's 
lives at the best price. That is something that should not be 
discounted.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BARRASSO. This health care law continues to be bad for patients, 
for providers, for the doctors who take care of them, and it is bad for 
the taxpayers.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                               Education

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
talk about a bipartisan bill that was recently passed out of the 
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, the HELP Committee, 
which I chair and of which Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming is the ranking 
member. This bipartisan bill reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965 and would replace its current iteration, which 
everyone knows by the title of ``No Child Left Behind.'' I want to 
start with a few words about the Federal role in education in this 
country since ESEA is a key part of that role.
  While it is certainly true education is primarily a State and local 
function, the Federal Government does play an important role, and a 
well-educated citizenry is clearly in the national interest. A central 
Federal role is to ensure all Americans, regardless of race, gender, 
national origin, religion, or disability, have the same equal 
opportunity to a good education as any other American citizen.
  Likewise, the Constitution expressly states that our National 
Government was formed specifically to ``promote the general welfare, 
and secure the blessings of liberty.'' The general welfare, I submit, 
is greatly in danger when the populace is not adequately educated, and 
education is critical to liberty. As Frederick Douglass so eloquently 
noted, education ``means emancipation. It means light and liberty.''
  It is no surprise that the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 expressly 
stated that ``schools and the means of education shall be forever 
encouraged.'' That law encouraged new territories to establish schools.
  The Federal Government also encouraged States to establish public 
colleges and universities through the Morrill Act of 1862, which 
started the whole land grant college movement.
  Moving into the 20th century, the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, 
known as the GI bill, provided grants to World War II veterans to 
pursue a college education.
  In 1954, the Supreme Court struck down laws endorsing racial 
segregation in public schools.
  In 1958, Congress authorized the National Defense Education Act, the 
first Federal loan program to students for higher education. That was 
one I borrowed money from when I went to Iowa State University.
  That was followed by the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Federal 
Pell grants enacted in 1972.
  The Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed in 1965 and 
provided aid to States and school districts to improve education for 
children from low-income families.
  In 1975, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children 
Act, which later became the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act, which was to assist States and districts in educating children 
with disabilities.
  In 1994, Congress passed the Goals 2000: Educate America Act and the 
Improving America's Schools Act.
  In 2001, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act, which went 
even further in terms of what was required of schools to receive 
Federal funds.
  I go through all this so you can see that the Federal role in 
education spans over 200 years, and its primary objective has always 
been to increase educational opportunity and to enhance educational 
attainment. This context is important to any discussion about the 
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  The original goal of ESEA was to provide resources to the schools 
with the most disadvantaged students. This funding was needed because 
many States and districts use education funding formulas that provide 
fewer resources to high-poverty schools. Again, when anyone wants to 
talk about this, I say go back and read Jonathan Kozol's book entitled 
``Savage Inequalities,'' written in the mid-1980s, in which he pointed 
out the gross inequality in our schools in America depending upon your 
ZIP Code--depending upon where you lived. We knew from that time that 
educating poor students actually requires more resources, not fewer, 
and title I was our attempt to

[[Page S7350]]

create a better, more equitable education system. Title I of ESEA has 
never fully realized that goal, but it has served as a significant 
source of funding to our most impoverished schools, leading to more 
educational opportunity for low-income students over the last 40 years.
  In the early 1990s, a national consensus emerged around the idea that 
for the United States to remain competitive in the world economy, our 
education system needed significant improvements. Foremost among these 
was the movement for a ``standards-based reform.'' That was the idea 
that statewide academic standards and assessments aligned with those 
standards were a key lever for ensuring that all students received a 
good education. To that end, the 1994 reauthorization of ESEA required 
that States have one educational accountability system for all 
students, including racial and ethnic minorities, students with 
disabilities, and English-language learners. Along with Goals 2000, it 
required that States put in place standards and assessments so that we 
would actually know how students were doing.
  During the next reauthorization--that was the No Child Left Behind 
Act in 2001--lawmakers felt compelled to be more prescriptive with 
States to ensure they improved their low-performing schools and focused 
on closing pernicious student achievement gaps. Therefore, NCLB, as it 
is known, defined ``adequate yearly progress'' for schools and 
districts. It required districts to implement public school choice, 
supplemental educational services in schools, and it set aside 20 
percent of their title I funds for these activities. It also included a 
list of rigorous interventions for schools in corrective action and an 
additional category of ``restructuring'' for the most chronically low-
performing schools with even more severe consequences attached.
  What was the result of this more heavyhanded and prescriptive version 
of ESEA? Well, ``The Proficiency Illusion,'' a 2007 report by the 
Fordham Institute, found that State definitions of student proficiency 
varied erratically, and comparisons across the States were not valid.
  A new term was coined in education. It was called the hockey stick. 
In reaction to the 2014 proficiency deadline that schools were to meet, 
what happened is that States backloaded the student gains needed to 
reach this goal. So it kind of came in the shape of a hockey stick 
lying on its side. So it was at a low level, and then all of a sudden, 
in the last 2 or 3 years, all of these proficiency standards would have 
to be met. That is why so many more schools are now failing to make 
adequate yearly progress across the country as we approach 2014. The 
slope gets steeper, and it gets tougher for them to make that yearly 
progress.

  Another thing happened. Districts responded to the new restructuring 
category by choosing the least prescriptive--and some would say the 
weakest--option. In effect, districts could do as much or as little as 
they wanted in these severely underperforming schools.
  Lastly, the No Child Left Behind law drove a critical transparency 
and focus on the performance of student subgroups--which was good, but 
its prescriptiveness also led to a culture of compliance and not 
innovation. So they would comply, but nothing would be done to change 
the system.
  Given this history, we must now ask what the next reauthorization of 
ESEA should look like. Should the Federal Government come down harder 
on States and districts, be more prescriptive, more punitive?
  I strongly believe that we must maintain a robust Federal role. In 
looking at the most recent national assessment of educational 
progress--also called NAEP--scores, we see that more than 50 percent of 
the students who are eligible for free or reduced lunch--read that as 
``poor kids,'' OK?--scored ``below basic'' on the fourth grade reading 
assessment, as compared to only 17 percent of students who were not 
eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. Fifty percent of the poor 
kids read ``below basic,'' compared to only 17 percent of kids who were 
not poor. On the eighth grade mathematics assessment, almost half--49 
percent--of African-American students scored ``below basic.'' Got that? 
On eighth grade math, 49 percent of African-American students scored 
``below basic,'' as compared to only 16 percent of White students.
  Madam President, we believe in equal opportunity in this country, but 
you cannot have equality of opportunity when you have inequality of 
education. Our economy, our ethics, and our commitment to equal 
opportunity all demand that the Federal Government continue to have a 
strong role in ensuring an educated citizenry. But just as the Federal 
role has evolved from Federal land grants to student Pell grants, we 
must be willing to shift to new approaches when the old ones aren't 
working.
  I do not believe No Child Left Behind is the pinnacle of Federal 
education laws. I believe we can and must do better. Our bipartisan 
bill follows a different course, one of a more strategic partnership--
partnership--with States and districts within Federal guidelines or 
Federal parameters.
  In making this move, it is important to note that States have stepped 
up to the standards and accountability plate in recent years.
  In 2009, the Common Core State Standards Initiative was launched, a 
State-led effort to develop high-quality standards that are common 
across State lines. Thus far, 46 States and the District of Columbia 
have adopted the English language arts standards, and 45 States have 
adopted the math standards.
  In 2011, the Council of Chief State School Officers released its 
accountability principles for next-generation accountability systems, 
now endorsed by 45 States. These principles include setting performance 
goals for all schools and districts aligned to college- and career-
ready standards; measuring student outcomes based on status and growth; 
differentiating between schools and districts and providing supports 
and interventions; and targeting the lowest performing schools for 
significant interventions. States committed through these principles to 
doing deeper diagnostic reviews as appropriate--looking at more than 
just student test scores and high school graduation rates--to better 
link accountability determinations to meaningful supports and 
interventions.
  This is all being done by the States. So these commitments by the 
States have led me to believe we may be entering an era in which the 
Federal Government can work in partnership with States to improve our 
Nation's schools, while continuing to provide a backstop to avoid 
returning to old ways of discrimination and exclusions. I think that is 
what the bipartisan bill passed by the HELP Committee last month does.
  This bill, in many ways, resembles the ESEA blueprint released by 
Secretary Duncan almost 2 years ago. Our bill gets rid of AYP--the 
annual yearly progress--but it sets Federal parameters for State-
designed accountability systems, which they are already doing. They are 
doing that on their own. These systems must cover all students, 
including students with disabilities and English-language learners; 
they must continue to measure and report on the performance of all 
schools; they must expect continuous improvement for all schools and 
subgroups of students; and they must provide for interventions in low-
performing schools or schools with low-achieving student subgroups.
  State accountability plans are also subject to peer review and 
approval by the Secretary of Education--an important safeguard on the 
quality and integrity of these systems. In short, we do not want to 
have a race-to-the-bottom type of system where States race to the 
bottom to see who has to do the least to meet these quality 
improvements.
  The HELP Committee's bill also sets the high bar of having students 
graduate from high school college- and career-ready. It also tightens 
the Federal focus on turning around persistently low-achieving 
schools--the bottom 5 percent--and our Nation's dropout factories--
those high schools that graduate less than 60 percent of their 
students--less than 60 percent of their students.
  We focus on those schools with significant student achievement gaps. 
What I mean by that is sometimes you might have very good schools by 
all appearances--all the test scores are great, they graduate a lot of 
students--

[[Page S7351]]

but there are subgroups there--usually students of color, English-
language learners, students with disabilities--who aren't receiving the 
proper type of education. But because the rest of the school looks so 
good, they are sort of not seen. They are sort of invisible. These are 
the achievement-gap schools which we have focused on and which, I might 
add, States have already said they are going to focus on too.
  Our bill takes the significant step of closing the comparability 
loophole so that funds provided through title I ESEA will finally serve 
as additional dollars--not replacement but additional dollars--for our 
neediest students. And title I schools will get their fair share of 
Federal resources.
  It also provides districts with more flexibility in how States and 
districts spend their Federal funds while ensuring that the resources 
designated to serve our most disadvantaged students get to those 
students. The bill incentivizes the development of rigorous and fair 
teacher and principal evaluation systems. We don't mandate it, but we 
do incentivize teacher and principal evaluation systems, and it 
provides these critical school staff with the support they need to 
continually improve teaching and learning.
  The bill also leverages opportunities for more children to access 
high-quality early learning programs and adds new protections for some 
of our most vulnerable children--homeless kids and students in foster 
care--so they can be better served by schools.
  Our bill strategically consolidates programs and focuses grant funds 
on a smaller number of programs to allow for greater flexibility. It 
invests in effective programs to train and support principals and 
teachers for high-need schools. It fosters innovation through new 
programs such as Race to the Top, Investing in Innovation, and Promise 
Neighborhoods.
  So as I have said many times over the past few years, I believe this 
is a good bill. I am proud of our efforts. The bill is the result of 
many months of bipartisan negotiation and, as such it is a carefully 
crafted compromise. It does not contain everything I want, nor does it 
contain everything Senator Enzi wanted. I said the other day: This is 
not my bill and this is not Senator Enzi's bill, but it is our bill--
and I don't mean just the two of us, but I mean our committee bill. It 
is, as currently written, a bill that moves us forward beyond the 
punitive nature of No Child Left Behind.
  Last, I want to make clear that as this process moves forward, I 
believe it is crucial that we maintain the integrity and balance of 
this bipartisan compromise. We owe it to our kids and our Nation to 
produce a strong bill that will actually move the needle in improving 
our educational system. That will be the barometer that will guide me 
as this process moves forward.
  To that end, I would note that, historically, education policy has 
been done in a bipartisan fashion, and I believe the House must also 
maintain that approach. Without a bipartisan bill coming out of the 
House, I believe it would be difficult to find a path forward that will 
draw the support we need from both sides of the aisle to be able to 
send a final bill to the President that he can sign. Here in the Senate 
we have demonstrated it is possible to reach bipartisan consensus on 
ESEA. We all need to work together in a bipartisan way to replace No 
Child Left Behind with this new and better law.
  With the reauthorization of ESEA, we are on the brink of change, and 
change many times is difficult. But we must work together to move from 
a culture of minimal compliance with Federal requirements to one of 
shared innovation, shared responsibility, and success for students. I 
look forward to working toward this new partnership and to the next 
chapter of an effective Federal role in promoting educational 
excellence and equity.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.


                              Veterans Day

  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, tomorrow I will join with what I hope 
will be every American in paying tribute to our veterans who have 
served us over 200 years to protect the liberty, the freedom, and the 
peace that all of us enjoy--our veterans from the Revolutionary War, 
veterans who created this great Republic, to our veterans who serve 
today in Afghanistan and the war on terror.
  In the history of our country, every generation has been called at a 
time of trouble, and in America's good fortune every generation has 
responded. There are significant dates in the history of our country 
that remind us of the great military victories that we have had and the 
great sacrifices our soldiers have made: December 7, 1941, the terrible 
attack on Pearl Harbor; June 6, 1944, when Americans bravely stormed 
Omaha Beach and began the invasion of Europe which ran out Nazi 
Germany. We all remember, with horror and with terror, 9/11/2001 when 
New York, Washington, and all of America and all peace-loving people 
were attacked by al-Qaida, and just a few days later, September 20, 
when we began and initiated our effort to go after al-Qaida wherever it 
was, and now recognizing, a little over 10 years later, terrorists have 
been disrupted, bin Laden has been killed, and America and the world 
are a safer place.
  In the financial and economic history of our country, there have also 
been significant dates which we should remember and significant 
responses which we also should recognize: the tragedy of October 1929 
when the market crashed and the Great Depression began, the difficulty 
of Black Friday in 1987 when the markets had a terrible crash. Those 
were all memorable times, and we hated to see our financial and 
economic stability upset.
  Well, there is another critical day coming in America's history, and 
it is coming 13 days from today on November 23, 2011, when the select 
committee we in this Senate and the Members of the House created to 
address our troubles economically in this country, which are rooted in 
our spending, rooted in our tax system, and rooted in our entitlement 
system--the select committee is to come back with at least $1.2 
trillion in cuts, revenue increases, or reform of entitlements over a 
10-year period of time, to be matched with the $900 billion that we cut 
in August to, hopefully, get us on some type of a track that will be a 
sustainable recovery in getting our balance back in line. But there is 
fear that a deal will not be reached, and that is a failure that is not 
an option, in my judgment.
  Yesterday, there was an offer put on the table that involved 
revenues, involved the reform of entitlements, and involved spending 
cuts put on the table to begin the discussion to find common ground to 
have $1.2 trillion or more in cuts. Unfortunately, as I understand it, 
the conversation ended, and they are not back at the table yet, and 
there are 13 days left to go.
  As just one Member of the Senate, but as the father of three and 
grandfather to nine, someone who has lived in this country almost 67 
years, I implore my colleagues on the select committee, and all of us 
in the Senate, to be supportive of their effort to get back to the 
table, to put all issues back on the table, and understand that failure 
is not an option.
  Today in Greece, in Italy, in Spain, and in the European Union there 
is great fear. There is a search for leadership in those that can 
control their debt, control their entitlements, and control their 
spending.
  America, as it led on D-day on June 6, 1944, as it led in the battle 
against al-Qaida and terrorists, must lead economically at this time 
more than ever. It is time for us to put forward a plan that gives us a 
chance to recover our economy over time, lower our debt and our deficit 
over time, and reduce our spending over time. It is not an instant, 1-
day cure that we seek, but it is an amortization of our liabilities to 
get our leverage down and our hopes and our prosperity up.
  So as one Member of the Senate, I implore our members of the select 
committee to come back to the table, to put every issue on the table, 
to forthrightly discuss them, and understand that November 23, 2011, is 
going to be a historic day in this country--historic because we found a 
solution and began a process or historic because we as Americans for 
the first time looked the other way.
  As one Member of the Senate, I don't want to look the other way. I 
want to look my constituents square in the eye and say that I was 
willing to look at spending; I was willing to look at entitlement 
reform; I was willing to look at revenues.

[[Page S7352]]

  I am willing to find a path forward so America can remain in the 
future what it always has been; that is, a beacon of economic security 
in a troubled world.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Veterans Day

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, tomorrow, Veterans Day, our Nation will 
pay our respect and honor to the men and women who have served in our 
military.
  I know we say this frequently, but every day we should honor the men 
and women who have served our Nation in uniform. Every day we should 
have in our thoughts and prayers those who are currently in harm's way 
defending America's freedom. We want to make sure we do everything we 
can to make sure they have the support of this Nation to complete their 
mission safely and return to their families safely.
  So I take this time to express the appreciation of this Senator, on 
behalf of the people of Maryland, to the men and women who have served 
our Nation, who are our veterans, their families, and those who are 
currently serving our Nation in the military service. They have 
defended this Nation and the freedoms we enjoy today from our 
traditional threats from hostile countries to our current threats that 
come from extremists and terrorists. Our men and women in our Armed 
Forces have served our Nation very proudly.
  We need to show our appreciation by words and deeds, and I know I 
speak for the Members of this body that we need to make sure we provide 
the very best in health care to those who are returning from Iraq and 
Afghanistan and to those who have served our Nation. I have visited and 
seen firsthand our soldiers who have returned and how they are being 
treated, and I tell you we need to keep up this commitment.
  I compliment my friend, Congressman Ruppersberger, my colleague from 
Maryland, who started a program known as Miles for Heroes, where 
soldiers who were returning home would come into BWI Airport and 
Baltimore, but for them to get to their homes they had to purchase 
their own tickets in order to see their families. In many cases, our 
soldiers who returned home for treatment, their families could not 
afford to travel to visit them in the medical facility.
  Congressman Ruppersberger introduced a proposal where they could use 
frequent flier miles and donate that so our soldiers and their families 
could get airline tickets to see each other. It has been extremely 
successful. We celebrated an anniversary of that not too long ago at 
the BWI Airport.

  I mention that because I have filed S. 1776 to extend this program to 
hotel miles so families can not only have the transportation costs to 
visit their wounded warriors but also have a place to stay. I think 
that makes abundant sense, and I hope we will be able to act on that. 
To me, this is what we should be doing on Veterans Day, not only again 
showing our words but also showing our deeds.
  When I was at Baltimore Washington International Airport, I had a 
chance to visit the returning soldiers, literally just coming home from 
Afghanistan and Iraq. It was an incredible experience to see their 
faces as they reunited with their families, having served this Nation 
in combat. But there was also concern on some of their faces because 
they do not know whether they are going to have a job to return to once 
they return to the work place. We took some steps to help them today in 
that regard by the passage of a bill that will provide incentives for 
employers to provide employment for our veterans returning home from 
Afghanistan and Iraq. That is exactly what we should be doing, showing 
our support for our veterans.
  I wished to take this time to pay respect and to honor those who 
serve in our military. Tomorrow, on November 11, at 11 o'clock in the 
morning, I will be at Cheltenham at the veterans cemetery for a 
commemoration where we will pay honor to all the men and women who have 
served our Nation, and I will then express, on behalf of the people of 
Maryland and the people of this Nation, our gratitude for preserving 
our way of life and being a beacon of hope for freedom-loving people 
around the world.


                       Cross-Border Air Pollution

  Madam President, earlier today we rejected the resolution by Senator 
Paul that would have undone the cross-state air pollution standards. I 
voted against that resolution. I wish to compliment my colleagues for 
the strong bipartisan vote that rejected the resolution that would have 
prevented this regulation from going into effect. I wish to share with 
my colleagues some of my reasons.
  This is a matter of a sense of fairness. Let me talk for a moment 
about Maryland. Maryland has done all it can to protect the health of 
its citizens with some of the most stringent clean air standards in the 
Nation. We have done that. We have enacted those standards. We have 
implemented those standards. But here is the problem: 50 percent of the 
smog that comes into Maryland that affects the health of Marylanders 
comes in from other States. Maryland can do everything it can to 
prevent the air pollution in our State, but it is coming in from other 
States, affecting the health of our citizens.
  We have 140,000 Maryland children who suffer from asthma. Dirty air 
makes it difficult for these children to have a productive day in 
school. We have workers who cannot work on bad air days. It is 
critically important that we move forward with sensible cross-State air 
pollution standards. That is exactly what the Obama administration 
brought forward. Thanks to the vote in the Senate, those regulations 
will be able to go forward.
  I wish to dispel another myth. Some say we cannot have clean air and 
job growth. We cannot have a clean environment. We have to choose 
between jobs and the environment. I tell you, we need to have a clean 
environment in order to get the type of job growth we want. I can give 
the number of people who lose days from work as a result of poor air 
quality and the effect it has on their health. I can talk about the 
productivity in the workplace as a result of illness that is generated 
because of dirty air. All that has absolutely been documented by our 
scientists. They can demonstrate that. But let me talk a little bit 
about concrete jobs in the Maryland example.
  In 2007, the Maryland legislature implemented the toughest powerplant 
emission laws on the east coast of the United States. They used 2002 as 
a baseline and they reduced SOX emissions by 80 percent by 
this year. They reduce NOX emissions by 75 percent by next 
year. It will reduce mercury emissions by 90 percent by 2013. These are 
the major air pollutants we are aimed at reducing. Maryland has done 
that.
  What impact has that had on our economy? Two thousand skilled 
construction worker jobs were created as a result of the investment 
that was made in clean air. We now have Brandon Shores, one of the 
cleanest coal-burning powerplants in the country. That is the legacy 
Maryland has given us. We have created jobs and have done what we can 
for clean air to help our children and help our community.
  As I said earlier, there is very little more that Maryland can do. We 
have to rely now on the help of other States. It is for that reason 
that we have seen utilities that are supporting us. Constellation 
Energy, Excelon, PG&E have supported reasonable standards for air 
quality, and they recognize it is the right thing to do to have these 
standards apply to all States because pollution knows no State border.
  I was encouraged by the vote we had on this issue. It was a vote for 
healthy air for our children, for jobs for our construction industry, 
and a stronger economy for America's future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. KIRK. Madam President, I wish to follow the remarks of my 
colleague in a colloquy, briefly, saying I agree with him which is why 
I voted to support restrictions on cross-State air pollution. Certainly 
coming from Maryland, I understand that one State can

[[Page S7353]]

pollute another, especially given the prevailing westerly winds. But 
even in the State of Illinois we estimate that the rule will reduce 
pollution in Chicagoland by 7 to 13 percent and in high-ozone time, the 
highest pollution, 24 percent.
  We have also seen quite a number of our powerplants already 
reengineer their plants to control pollution, expecting this regulation 
which, by the way, comes from the Bush administration, the initial 
legislation, and pursuant to a Federal court order.
  I commend my colleague and say there is bipartisan agreement that we 
control cross-State pollution. This rule, by the data that was provided 
by the Congressional Research Service, has a significant amount of 
benefit in reducing particulate matter that would be in the State of 
Illinois and especially Eastern States.
  Mr. CARDIN. If my colleague will yield, we had a strong bipartisan 
vote on the floor on this issue. He is exactly right. All States in 
this country will benefit from it. Illinois is a State that also 
receives pollution from other States. Pollution does not know a State 
line. We cannot stop the air from traveling. I think my colleague is 
exactly right. This was not just the east coast. It happens to be at 
the tailpipe, as we say it, of the pollution in America, but the 
Midwest is very much impacted and this regulation will help the health 
of the people of the Midwest and throughout the country.
  I thank my colleague for his comments.


                         Honoring Our Veterans

  Mr. KIRK. I actually rose to speak on several other topics which I 
will do in turn. First, I wish to say tomorrow we are going to honor 
generations of veterans who wore the uniform of the United States. As a 
Member of the House, I worked to help save my congressional district's 
veterans hospital in north Chicago, IL, after Washington bureaucrats 
recommended its closure by the Department of Defense, by the Department 
of Veterans Affairs.
  We actually arranged to bring the Department of Defense and the VA 
together in a naval hospital and a VA hospital, to combine them in what 
became the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center, building 
on synergy and seamless care for Active Duty and veterans alike. It 
became the first combined VA-Navy hospital in the Nation. It is a 
world-class facility that delivers medical care to about 4,000 Active 
Duty at Great Lakes and about 42,000 recruits and a equivalent number 
of veterans in the region.
  I like to think about the waiting room of this hospital in which 
grizzled veterans from--one I remember meeting from the battle of Savo 
Island, 1942, World War II right next to the rawest new recruits to the 
Navy, in the same waiting room about to receive care from the same 
nurses and doctors at this now combined Navy-VA hospital.
  In the Senate, I became the new ranking member of the Military 
Construction and VA Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee. Now we are 
going to see if we can expand this model of care, not just to one part 
of northern Illinois but to the country. We should go to the next 
level, not just integrating one set of hospitals but for the whole 
country.
  Here, the greatest potential is in medical records. It should be the 
policy of this Congress, the Appropriations Committee and our 
subcommittee, that we create in the end one military VA health record 
so there is a seamless continuum of care for the men and women who have 
joined to protect our country from the first day they sign up as a 
recruit until their sunset years as a veteran.
  I shared a draft of this speech with the chairman of our 
subcommittee, Chairman Johnson, and also Chairman Culberson of the 
House subcommittee, and the administration, to hopefully drive 
consensus in the House and Senate forward on this issue. I think we all 
now agree there should be more Defense Department and VA collaboration 
on health care but especially focused on health records.
  With Chairman Johnson, we held a March hearing on the progress of 
moving forward to a military veteran--what is called--fully integrated 
electronic health record or IEHR. The system will provide 
servicemembers with a single medical record from their enlistment 
through their final days as a veteran. I wish to applaud Secretary 
Shinseki, Secretary Gates, and Secretary Panetta, his successor, for 
pushing the very separate Department of Defense and VA bureaucracies 
into a single common record system. The integrated health record 
developed jointly by VA and DOD is a very large and necessary IT 
project. It will encompass quite a lot of effort to be caring for 
around 15 million servicemembers, veterans, and eligible families each 
year.
  For more than 20 years, these two executive departments built 
entirely separate health care systems, but the taxpayer did pay for 
both. A 20-year marine leaving Active-Duty health care would then, 
potentially, today, have three separate health care records--a military 
one, a veterans record, and a civilian care record through TRICARE. 
This meant that information on medical treatment or service-connected 
disabilities could easily be split between these records. VA doctors or 
VA benefits personnel would not have the complete information in 
assessing care for this American in uniform or just out of uniform.
  The new system will hopefully eliminate paper records, missing files, 
and replace them all with a common record, complete with Active-Duty 
medical history that the VA medical care providers can access in all 
hospitals and clinics throughout the country.
  A project of this magnitude, 6 years of work, several hundred million 
dollars in expense, is not without risk. It is our responsibility to 
make sure both departments, DOD and VA, make the right cost-effective 
decisions to defend the hard-working taxpayer. In past years, normal 
practice inside Washington would be to give a project such as this to a 
massive government contractor that would hijack it into an unwieldy and 
proprietary system which rapidly became outdated, with technology that 
was only licensed to that contractor. In the Congress we cannot let 
that happen with this project. In times of physical austerity it is 
critical that the government work carefully with Chairman Johnson in 
the Senate and Chairman Culberson in the House to look beyond their own 
walls to cooperate and innovate and deliver more efficient and 
effective services.

  It is imperative that VA and DOD ensure that it gets this right and 
not replicate problems associated with past developments of so many 
large IT systems. One of the most positive developments is the joint 
VA-DOD approach that will embrace best commercial practices by 
leveraging technology already used in the private sector through 
commercial off-the-shelf systems, and especially open-source coding so 
that the electronic health record can be billed at the lowest cost. 
This will ensure that the new system will benefit from innovative and 
new solutions being used by major medical systems and health care 
providers across the country.
  An open source--that is an open computer-code approach--will, most 
importantly, prevent us, the government, from being locked into one 
single vendor. Instead the approach will allow not only innovation but 
will require a private firm to integrate their technology into the 
joint VA-DOD system. It will also encourage real competition as every 
vendor bidding on a new contract will have full, public access to the 
product completed by the previous vendor. This approach should ensure 
that the taxpayer is defended, that their dollars are well spent, and 
that servicemembers and veterans are well served by the system that we 
then develop.
  I commend the VA and DOD on their willingness to break down the walls 
between their respective departments and work together on this project, 
especially on the eve of Veterans Day. If successful, this approach 
could serve as a model for cooperation between other government 
agencies serving similar communities, making the government smarter and 
leveraging private sector innovation and developing cost-saving 
technologies--like open source coding, like commercial off-the-shelf 
requirements--which is exactly the mindset we need to embrace in the 
cost-conscious environment we are in today.
  In closing, I want to, once again, thank Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs Shinseki, our previous Secretary of Defense Gates, and our 
current Secretary of Defense Panetta for their vision in bringing this 
tough problem together. I

[[Page S7354]]

will tell each one of these Cabinet Departments that Chairman Culberson 
and I are looking forward, in about 2\1/2\ months' time, to meeting 
with their teams to assess the project and progress on developing a 
fully integrated, complete joint DOD and then VA health record to care 
for that American from the time they enlist until their final days as a 
veteran.


                            Hiring Veterans

  On November 11, 1919, exactly 1 year after the end of World War I, 
President Wilson designated Armistice Day to honor those who served 
during the great war. In 1954, Congress changed the name of the holiday 
to honor the service of all men and women in uniform that we now know 
as Veterans Day. For the last 22 years, it has been the honor of my 
life to serve in the U.S. Navy Reserve. I have seen firsthand the 
sacrifice of men and women who wore the uniform and, quite frankly, 
provided the freedoms that we enjoy as Americans.
  This week we remember those who sacrificed everything in the defense 
of our Nation, and I am proud to support legislation that provides a 
new employment opportunity for those veterans. The VOW to Hire Heroes 
Act of 2011 is bipartisan legislation that the Senate has just passed 
to give our veterans the opportunity to learn new skills and reenter 
the workforce. Too often employers overlook the experience of our 
professional veterans. These men and women are typically highly 
effective, organized leaders who have been part of a team in a 
difficult environment. They have undertaken responsibilities few could 
imagine under extreme conditions--especially at young ages.
  Across Afghanistan and Iraq, veterans are saving lives and using 
state-of-the-art medical equipment in austere conditions. When they 
return, these skills they have obtained do not necessarily quickly 
translate into civilian certifications that first responders need to 
qualify for a job. As a result, governments subsidize expensive 
training for veterans who are already, in many cases, substantially 
overqualified. The bill just passed in the Senate requires the 
Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Labor to identify 
equivalencies between military service and private sector competencies. 
This change will translate military experience and certifications into 
civilian qualifications opening new career opportunities for veterans.
  The legislation also reforms and improves the Department of Defense 
Transition Assistance Program to assist retiring servicemembers with 
resume development, educational options, and tools for separating from 
the military. The legislation will identify potential positions and 
industries in the private sector for our new veterans.
  For unemployed veterans the legislation establishes a retraining 
educational benefit allowing veterans to go back to school for high-
demand skill development and to obtain a technical certificate or 
degree that prepares them to reenter the workforce. This bill also 
engages the private sector and expands the tax credit for hiring our 
returning heroes.
  The legislation is particularly important to my home State where we 
have over 700,000 veterans. Across Illinois they enthusiastically take 
on new challenges and become teachers and corporate executives or 
public servants.
  In 1901, a Knox County native and Illinois veteran, Charles Walgreen, 
built the foundation of one of our Nation's largest pharmacy chains. 
Chicago native George Halas served twice in the Navy and then spent 63 
years at the helm of the Chicago Bears and helped found the NFL. 
Countless other citizens of our State served in the military but then 
made invaluable contributions to our Nation and its economy.
  Despite what most Americans see on TV, Chairman Murray in the Senate 
and Chairman Miller in the House demonstrated that Republicans and 
Democrats across the Senate and House can work together, and this 
legislation just passed as a result of that bipartisan cooperation.
  Today our Nation's veterans are facing different adversities and are 
overcoming new challenges both in the field and when they come home. We 
owe these men and women everything, and this measure--a bipartisan 
measure--is one of the ways we can say thank you.


                          Europe's Debt Crisis

  I also want to take a moment to speak briefly on the subject of the 
European debt situation. I am concerned that we are now eyewitnesses to 
history, but few in the Senate are even watching major events that 
could hurt the incomes of Americans at home.
  Margaret Thatcher once said: Socialists eventually run out of other 
people's money. We witnessed the end of communism in 1991 when Russia 
ran out of money. In 2011 we may be witnessing the end of European 
socialism as many of their economies go bankrupt. Events in Europe 
offer an immediate warning to our own banking system and is a long-term 
lesson to our society.
  I thank my friend David Malpass for his work in helping to develop my 
view on these issues. In our view, Europe's approach to the run on 
Greek debt and then Italian debt and possibly this afternoon French 
debt shows that Europe's leaders are not addressing the problems 
squarely that they face. The current approach they have is 
unsustainable.
  Yesterday we witnessed the interest rate Italy must pay to borrow 
funds rising to over 7 percent from the 6.4 percent on Tuesday and the 
5 percent they had to pay at the beginning of the month.
  Germany's Finance Minister suggested that Italy consider drawing on 
EFSF funds, implying that Germany doesn't recognize the true magnitude 
of the systemic problem they face, still focused on Plan A when Plan A 
no longer is viable. As Malpass commented, this compares a popgun 
versus the charging financial rhinoceros that is needed.
  German Chancellor Angela Merkel talked about a new European Union and 
new EU treaty structures. The United States should support increased 
financial restraints--tougher ones than the Maastricht Treaty provided. 
It is hard to see how Europe could undertake an entirely new treaty and 
then ratify it in the middle of this crisis. After all, the EFSF was 
hard enough.
  Merkel's party also discussed ways to allow countries to exit the 
euro. This would be an immediate and severe threat to the current 
outlook, but her party is now no longer in the ascendency. It is losing 
strength to coalition parties that are more committed to the euro.
  On Tuesday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy raised the possibility 
of what he called a two-speed Europe in a speech in Strasbourg, meaning 
that the eurozone countries would have different rules than non-euro EU 
members. These issues would all be fine to discuss if we were not 
immediately in a current financial crisis. There are many steps the 
United States should encourage to prevent this situation from jumping 
across the Atlantic. Unfortunately, none of them appear to be underway.
  First, Italy should undertake major growth-oriented structural 
reforms in their labor market, but there appears to be little chance of 
that.
  Next, Europe could temporarily back away from the Basel III mark-to-
market and the bank capitalization levels they require, removing for 
now the threat their banks face: that they will be taken over or forced 
to excessively dilute their equity at the market bottom. Recall that 
the United States provided critical relief in this regard by 
reinstructing the FASB in March of 2009 to do this launching the equity 
market surge.
  European Nations could also begin guaranteeing new liabilities at 
their banks. Remember, also, the United States took this step in 
October of 2008 through a fee-based FDIC guarantee of new bank 
issuance. The ECB could also purchase Italian bonds in the size needed 
in the secondary market with the goal of lowering the current yield. 
Remember, the Fed bought American mortgage-backed securities in 
December of 2008 instantly helping recover and resuscitate that market.
  Unfortunately, right now none of these positive developments seem 
likely. The news tonight from Europe is fairly dismal, and I recall the 
collapse of German credit in July of 1931. It was that collapse that 
turned the recession of 1929 into the Great Depression.
  Our Congress right now is rightly focused on the need to cut our own 
spending, but, unfortunately, the news that I have seen is the crisis 
abroad

[[Page S7355]]

could become the No. 1 economic story in the United States as early as 
next month.
  Americans should watch this situation very closely. We should 
encourage Europe to take the actions I outlined above, and most 
importantly, we should make sure the supercommittee does its job and 
that we kick our own spending habit before we face the same future.


                         Iran's Nuclear Program

  Lastly, I want to touch on a subject that I think most concerns me 
for the future of the country, especially next year.
  When the history of the Iranian nuclear program is written, November 
2011 is likely to be marked as the turning point toward conflict 
regarding Iran's nuclear weapons program. Recall that Iran has signed 
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and her government claims they are 
taking no action in violation of that treaty. Recall also in 1979 Iran 
embraced supporting terror as government policy. Iran was then 
certified as a state sponsor of terror by Presidents Carter, Reagan, 
Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama. Recall also that Iran now has become 
the top financier for two major terror groups in the Middle East, Hamas 
and Hezbollah.
  Iran has transferred nearly every type of weapon in its inventory--
including cruise missiles--to Hezbollah. Recall also that Iran has 
started the massive refining of uranium, far above the 3 percent 
necessary to fuel a reactor--upwards of 20 percent--moving to the 98 
percent needed to run an atomic weapon.
  This week, the IAEA released a landmark report. It said the Iranians 
were accelerating their uranium enrichment. It said they had received 
design information through military personnel on nuclear weapons. But, 
most importantly, it showed how step by step the Iranians were working 
on a nuclear warhead for their long-range SHAHAB-3 missile to include 
the density and weight of a nuclear weapon as well as the inclusion of 
an electric generator inside that weapon--unnecessary for a 
conventional munition but absolutely required for a nuclear munition--
that there were no submunitions, that the entire package was to go off 
at once, and that the critical design information behind that all 
pointed to a nuclear warhead. Our response should be, in my view, 
nonmilitary but the strongest nonmilitary means necessary.
  For many years as a House Member I worked on what I thought was the 
critical sanction, which was to take advantage of the key vulnerability 
of Iran; that the mullahs had so mishandled their economy since 1979 
that this oil-producing nation totally depended on foreign gasoline for 
their energy supplies. Our idea was to cut off Iran's supply of foreign 
gasoline and then to ensure that their signature under the nuclear 
nonproliferation treaty was genuine, real, and verifiable. After 
working many years on this legislation, eventually the House of 
Representatives voted, with over 400 positive votes, for this 
legislation to help cut off Iran's gasoline supply. In fact, the bill 
was unanimous in the Senate, and last year President Obama signed this 
bill into law.
  But the record now shows, according to Reuters this morning, that 
gasoline deliveries, despite the Obama sanctions, now have gone up 21 
percent to Iran. Despite the comprehensive sanctions the United States 
has leveled against Iran, the International Monetary Fund reports that 
the Iranian economy grew faster than the U.S. economy last year. So, 
many of us, looking at the sorry record of sanctions enforcement, have 
gathered together on the idea of one last sanction that we think could 
avoid a conflict, that we think would deliver the decisive diplomatic 
weight to solve this problem, and that is to sanction the Central Bank 
of Iran itself. We would say any entity which does business with the 
Central Bank of Iran cannot do business with the United States, and we 
would force every financial and business interest in the world to 
choose between the $300 billion Iranian economy and the $14 trillion 
American economy.
  We know the Central Bank of Iran is the central paymaster of 
Hezbollah and Hamas, two organizations Secretary of State Clinton has 
highlighted as sponsors of terror. We know the Central Bank of Iran is 
the central paymaster for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps and 
especially their subunit, the Quds force, which Attorney General Holder 
highlighted, which tried to launch a plot through a Mexican drug cartel 
to blow up a Washington, DC restaurant. They talked about killing 
dozens of Americans--they even talked about killing Senators--in an 
effort to kill the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States. We 
know the Central Bank of Iran also is the likely paymaster of the 
nuclear program of Iran itself.
  This summer, something unique happened in the life of the Senate. In 
these partisan times, with so many differences expressed between 
Republicans and Democrats, 92 Senators joined in the Kirk-Schumer 
letter saying that we should sanction the Central Bank of Iran, that we 
should cripple the Iranian currency. For God's sake, at least we can 
have Iranian economic growth as slower than U.S. economic growth for 
2012. It was a unique moment of bipartisan consensus, and the Obama 
administration even leaked to the New York Times that this action was 
under consideration. All indications are now that the Obama 
administration will take no major action against Iran, despite a United 
Nations report and despite a plot revealed by the Attorney General 
himself.
  Recall that the IAEA was the organization that downplayed Bush 
administration accusations against Iraq and its weapons of mass 
destruction program, and that following the fall of Saddam Hussein we 
consistently found that what the IAEA said about Iraq was exactly 
correct. So when the IAEA reports that the Iranians are working toward 
a nuclear weapon and a warhead aboard their SHAHAB-3 missile; when we 
learn that the Iranians are supporting terror through Hezbollah and 
Hamas with a plot to kill Americans at a Washington, DC restaurant; 
when we learn that Iranians have registered the names of every Baha'i 
family, all 330,000 in their country, that they have removed all 
Baha'is from universities, that they have kicked all Baha'i children 
and prohibited all Baha'i businesses from doing business with their 
government, we are worried that this is a government--probably the only 
member of the United Nations--where the head of state regularly talks 
about wiping another member of the United Nations off the planet, it 
seems as though we should take action.
  I recall a famous quote from President Kennedy long before he was 
elected President when he wrote an essay called ``Why America Slept'' 
in which he talked about all the signs of a coming catastrophe in 
Europe and no action by the U.S. Government.
  This week is the turning point for Iran. If the United States takes 
no action, then we set the Middle East on a course for conflict likely 
involving our allies in Israel, potentially also Saudi Arabia. The 
simple course of history right now I think would be improved if we 
leveled this sanction in a bipartisan fashion, giving our diplomats 
decisive weight to stop this program and, therefore, avoiding conflict. 
By taking the easy way out--by leveling no action against Iran--we 
actually are empowering those who would go to conflict more quickly.
  I am dumfounded as to the reason we are doing this. Senators on this 
floor told me they suspected there was so much insecurity about the 
current price of oil that the administration will do everything 
possible not to have conflict or stress in the Middle East in order to 
ensure its reelection and keep prices low. But I would argue that 
nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranians will automatically raise 
energy prices in the United States. I would argue that with the record 
of the Iranians transferring cruise missiles to Hezbollah, there is no 
doubt in my mind that the Iranians, once they build a sufficient 
stockpile of nuclear weapons, will transfer some of those to Hezbollah.
  We also see hostile intent by the Iranians not just at the Israelis 
but at the Saudi Arabians, and that the path to further instability and 
danger is in not taking action rather than taking action.
  This, on a Friday night in November, is the turning point on the Iran 
crisis. Many bureaucrats inside the administration would prefer we not 
know this

[[Page S7356]]

is the turning point. They would prefer we not realize the Iranian 
program is receiving decisive weight, and that according to experts the 
Iranians will have nuclear weapons either next year or, by their latest 
estimate, the year after. They would prefer we not realize that 
according to my scenario, they would build a sufficient stockpile so 
that we envision a possible future where by 2014 or 2015 the Iranians 
will have a sufficient number to begin transferring weapons to 
Hezbollah. And we certainly know that the moment the Iranians detonate 
a weapon, we will witness the launch of nuclear programs in Saudi 
Arabia and likely in Egypt.
  The bottom line is this: Without decisive action on economic 
sanctions, we condemn the Middle East to a conflict that eventually may 
involve weapons of mass destruction. With action similar to action 
called for by those who saw history correctly in the 1930s, we could 
help protect the coming generation from such a conflict. A world in 
which the Iranians have nuclear weapons is one that we grant to our 
kids in a far more dangerous environment than the 21st century, rather 
than the one we should grant to them.
  The Senate, hopefully, will vote on an amendment next week that I 
hope to offer to level this sanction on Iran. If opposed by the Obama 
administration, then I think we are condemning this region to an awful 
conflict, and I think we should protect the next generation from such a 
future by taking good, solid, decisive, nonmilitary sanctions action 
now.
  With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Social Security

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise today to address one of the 
most important issues facing the supercommittee; that is, where does 
Social Security fit into their plans?
  I know the supercommittee is doing a great job. They are working in a 
steady way to see how we can be a more frugal government, but while we 
are trying to be frugal, how we also meet our responsibilities for the 
national defense and also how we maintain our social contract.
  To me, one of the most essential programs in the social contract; 
that is, the contract between the U.S. Government and its people, is 
Social Security. For more than 75 years, under every President, we have 
worked in a bipartisan way to ensure the security and the solvency and 
the safety of Social Security. Every President has agreed that Social 
Security should be undeniable, available to everybody, reliable, that 
it is there when you need it, and inflation proof--inflation proof.
  I was in the House when we were teetering on a collapse of Social 
Security. Ronald Reagan was in the White House. Tip O'Neill was the 
Speaker of the House. Bob Dole and Bob Byrd were in the Senate. We went 
to work and made sure Social Security was solvent for all of 30 or 40 
years.
  Under Bill Clinton, we also took positive forward steps. Under 
President Bush he wanted to privatize it. That is the way he saw 
entailing its future solvency. We fought that. But we still had money 
in the trust fund.
  Now where are we? Well, there are those who say we have got to reduce 
the debt. Hey, I know we have to reduce the debt. I say to the 
Presiding Officer, we have had extensive conversations. The Presiding 
Officer has some very meaty ideas worthy of consideration. But let's 
make it clear, Social Security should not be on the table. When they 
say all options are on the table, let's put all options on the table 
for those programs that created the debt, that created the deficit. 
Social Security did not create our debt. Why it is part of the 
supercommittee conversation, debate, and even hit list, I do not know.
  That casts no aspersions against any member of the committee. I am 
talking about somehow or other editorial boards that know everything 
about everything all the time have said you have to do something about 
Social Security. We know we have to reform Social Security to modernize 
it for a 21st century economy and a 21st century demography. We get 
that. But it does not belong in the supercommittee up against the wall 
with impossible deadlines, up against the wall with impossible 
mandates.
  So while they are looking at revenue, discretionary spending, 
military spending, Social Security does not belong there. The reform of 
Social Security belongs in another environment. So that is position No. 
1.
  Position No. 2 is, what are we doing on Social Security? Well, I am 
concerned we are about to shred this social contract, and we are going 
to do it by doing something called the ``chained CPI.'' Isn't that a 
terrible word: ``chained CPI''? Wow. I am afraid we are going to chain 
seniors to poverty.
  Let me tell you what a chained CPI is. When you read all of the books 
we get, policy books, chained CPI would cut Social Security by $112 
billion over 10 years. They do it by changing the way the cost of 
living is calculated. It is based on kind of this ``theory.'' It is 
based on a ``theory of human behavior,'' one of those ``social 
engineering schemes.'' What it says is this: It assumes that a consumer 
will substitute lower cost items when the cost of what they normally 
purchase goes up.
  Well, that means, again, ``in theory,'' if the price of apples goes 
up, you are going to buy an orange. It sounds good. But for the debate 
on Social Security, it is inappropriate because the market basket 
approaches by senior citizens, validated by every economic and 
marketing group, say their largest expenditure is health care, and the 
reason they do it on health care is because they need it to keep alive. 
This is not trading a latte for Dunkin' Donuts. This is not going from 
arugula to big lettuce. This is life. This is life on the line when we 
are about to cut the seniors' bottom line. We have to get real and talk 
about what is the way seniors live, what is it they need to do to stay 
alive, and what is their purchasing power.
  So this is not Barb Mikulski. The Social Security people themselves 
say there is something called the market basket for elderly, CPI-E. It 
means they spend their money on health care, on food, and on energy, 
and in many cases housing. They cannot reduce those costs. Those are 
fixed costs for which they have no choice and no negotiating power. Our 
citizens, our senior citizens, cannot negotiate on their heat, they 
cannot negotiate much on their prescription drugs. Oh, they might go 
from a brandname to a generic. But if their cost of living is being 
squeezed down, they will not be able to do it. You cannot substitute 
your medication, your insulin, and substitute it for apricot juice.
  If the cost of prescription drugs goes up, so does medication. I am 
concerned that this chained CPI--human behavior, untested, untried 
social engineering scheme--is going to become the basis by which we 
calculate the cost of living.
  Let me go to some facts. By the way, this is not Senator Barb 
Mikulski talking, this is the Social Security Actuary, the Actuary 
actually giving accurate facts. Let's go to the A word. The Actuary 
actually giving accurate facts. First of all, they say this is a 
technical fix and does not mean a whole lot to seniors. Actually, the 
chained CPI will fundamentally restructure Social Security. If we do 
it, we will be complicit and complacent in creating a structurally 
induced poverty for old people.
  What do we mean? Well, if you look at this chart--and this comes from 
the Actuary--if you go to the chained CPI and the purchasing power they 
talk of, first of all, it will go into immediate effect. Then it 
actually cuts--it is not like--you know how the seniors were upset they 
did not get a cost of living 2 years in a row? They will actually get a 
reduced benefit. And under the way this will be calculated, 
hypothetically if you are now getting $15,132 in Social Security, if 
you are getting it when you are 65 now, 10 years from now your benefit 
will be reduced. Not only will you not get your cost of living, but 
your benefit will be reduced to $14,572.
  If you continue to live, and you are 85, it will be reduced to 
$14,148. It compounds itself. So God forbid you even make it another 30 
years. Because under what the chained CPI would do is you would 
essentially lose over close to

[[Page S7357]]

$1,600 in benefits. I cannot believe this. I cannot believe we are even 
talking about it. Because if we are talking about going with the true 
market basket, what you should do is actually have this increase. I 
will not go through all of the numbers, but they are significant and 
they are severe.
  There is another thing going around here on the floor: Oh, Senator 
Mikulski, why are you so upset? It will hurt future beneficiaries. 
Well, I am upset because no matter what time it affects a beneficiary, 
it affects a beneficiary. But what everyone fails to grasp is this will 
be an immediate--underline the word immediate--cut, according to the 
Social Security's Chief Actuary. If we pass this this year, this 
chained CPI begins December of 2012. So 1 year from this December, it 
would go into effect. That means if you are 65 years old, your benefit 
will be reduced that year. By the time 10 years later, your benefit 
will have been reduced five times as much. And if you make it to 85, 
your benefit will actually be reduced by 10 times as much.
  This is, to me, a horrific idea. The current CPI-W, which is what we 
call the cost of living, was used in 1972. It was the only measure we 
had at the time. It was viewed as an advanced thing for an inflation-
proof benefit. Now when we look at it, what we know is that we know the 
purchasing power--not the purchasing power, what is the market basket 
that seniors use. Chained CPI might be fine in other areas or other 
categories. I am not going to debate this here today.
  But what I do want to do this time, this place, I want to sound the 
alert. I am going to ring the bell. I am going to be at my battle 
station saying to every member of our caucus, and every member of the 
people on the other side of the aisle, please, read up on this. Know 
what we are doing. If you are going to vote, I do not want to hear 
buyer's remorse a year from now. I do not want to hear buyer's remorse 
2 years from now. I do not want to hear from the seniors in my home 
State of Maryland say: Where were you, Barbara? Did you say anything? 
Did you do anything? So I am saying here today, get out our policy 
books and for God's sake read them. Read them. And do not read what 
this think tank or that editorial board says, read the Social Security 
Actuary. Because I am telling you, we are about to do something that is 
irrevocable.
  I believe in old-fashioned values, and one of the great ones is honor 
thy father and thy mother. It is not just a great commandment to live 
by, it is sure a great public policy to govern by. The American people 
every day particularly who work hard now and live by the rules, go by 
the rules, pay into Social Security over a lifetime, we said to them: 
If you do that, your Social Security will be a guaranteed benefit. It 
will be a lifetime benefit. It will be reliable and undeniable. And it 
will be inflation proof.
  FDR signed the bill that created that contract. Every President 
regardless of the party has kept that promise. And it is up to this 
Congress not to shred the social contract with the seniors of the 
United States of America.
  I want to yield the floor to someone from the Finance Committee who 
has done so much work on this, such great work, such due diligence, and 
has a grasp of both the policy and the impact that it has on people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken.) The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the senior Senator 
from Maryland, for her leadership on this issue for protecting seniors 
and protecting women. It seems to me every time we have a battle that 
is about undercutting the benefits to women in America, Barbara 
Mikulski is on the Senate floor or in the halls and in various meeting 
rooms making sure that America knows what these proposals are.
  I could not have been more proud of her when she led all the women 
Senators on the Democratic side of the aisle to push back on the Bush 
Administration's proposal to privatize Social Security. At that point 
in time, she most succinctly told Americans that women, more than any 
other in that age group, would suffer because they live longer, they 
depend on Social Security, and if Social Security was privatized, women 
would feel the brunt of it.
  So I am proud to be out here this afternoon with her to talk about 
this proposal that has been--we cannot tell, because we do not know. We 
are not on the supercommittee. But it seems to be floating around in 
various forms, various organizations may be talking about it, the 
notion that we would change Social Security.
  I know at home in my State of Washington, people seem to be confused 
when we are talking about our budgets. And we are obviously having to 
make tough budget decisions, as are people around dining room tables, 
around city halls, around our State capitols and here in Congress are 
having discussions about how to have a budget to live within our means.
  But when you talk to them about the primary way--and one proposal 
that surfaced in the last budget negotiations in July was to 
automatically take $300 billion of cuts right off the top as the major 
proposal out of a concept called chained CPI. When you think about 
that, the first shot of budget cuts would be on the backs of seniors, 
it is almost as if someone thought seniors cooked up exotic financial 
instruments and foisted them on the U.S. economy and somehow they 
should pay the price. We know that is not the case.
  So why are people targeting these seniors now? And we are not sure if 
they are. We have just heard various rumors that perhaps this notion of 
chained CPI, a change in Social Security benefits as my colleague just 
outlined, would be a proposal.
  I am here to say, I am not for having the seniors in America share 
the brunt of sacrifice with a proposal such as this that would clearly 
be on the backs of seniors. It is not something they can afford. I know 
some of my colleagues may have endorsed a chained CPI, a change in the 
consumer price index to calculate inflation. But that is a cut that 
would increase over time. And literally, the longer you live, the more 
you are penalized. It is such a disproportionate impact to women who do 
live longer than men and count on those benefits for their living.
  In my State, changes to the cost-of-living adjustment would hurt more 
than 1 million Washingtonians. Social Security has kept about 30 
percent of Washington residents who are 65 and older out of poverty. 
That is what it has done for them. And what is more, 25 percent of 
seniors in my State live on Social Security alone. So there is a 
population that is depending on Social Security, and they are living on 
it alone, or it is making up--another 21 percent of them--it makes up 
90 percent of their income.
  I think this demonstrates that we cannot support these kinds of cuts, 
especially at the magnitude this proposal is talking about. The Social 
Security Office of the Actuary has reported that chained CPI would 
reduce the COLA by about .3 percent a year. So let's look at that 
example. A single woman, 65 years old in Washington State, would get a 
monthly benefit of about $1,100 a month or $13,300 annually.
  By age 80, if chained CPI would pass, that would result in a $56 per 
month or $672 annual cut in that benefit. So that is less food, that is 
less medicine, that is less vital care for these seniors. If that 
individual actually lived to 90 years old, it would be an $87 a month 
cut and a $1,044 cut annually. If you think about the costs these 
seniors endure--and I for one have proposed changing the market basket 
of goods that the CPI is based on, because if you think about it, we 
have a market basket of goods for their CPI that are what the overall 
economy looks at.
  But seniors have a much more expensive market basket of goods. They 
have to buy more medicine. They have other additional out-of-pocket 
health care expenses. And so their costs are going up at a higher rate. 
But this proposal, if you think about it, the average monthly cost of 
food for a single elderly individual is about $231 per month. That is 
what the average is, about $53 a week. That is based on data from the 
Elder Economic Security Standard Index. So an individual at 80 
basically means they would have 1 week less groceries under chained 
CPI.
  That is what it means. They would have 1 week left of groceries every 
month.
  In my State, when you think about the average out-of-pocket health 
care

[[Page S7358]]

expenses seniors have for care, that average out-of-pocket expense 
rises by $1,400 for an individual. If you think about it alone, the 
increase in health care out-of-pocket expenses basically wipes out 
where many seniors are for any kinds of remaining income. Certainly, if 
we put this kind of cut on top of that, it would make it clear that 
seniors would be getting less from Social Security. We recently, for 
the first time since 2009, gave seniors an increase to their cost-of-
living adjustment. Now what are we going to do--go backward and take it 
away? For 75 years, Americans have been paying into Social Security 
with the promise that they would receive these benefits in their 
retirement years. Now is not a time to break that promise.
  I think my colleague has clearly come to the floor with a message to 
our other colleagues who aren't here this afternoon, to say take a look 
at the details of this proposal. This is not a simple proposal about in 
the future someone is going to get less than they might under some 
other plan; this is about a cut in the benefit formula today that would 
impact seniors if implemented.
  So I am here with my colleague to say our economic situation has not 
been caused by seniors coming to Capitol Hill and proposing that we 
have opaque derivative markets. It wasn't caused by seniors coming and 
saying: Let's go ahead and have the banks get rid of Glass-Steagall so 
the banks can do whatever they want. Seniors didn't come here and foist 
this economic situation on us. Yet, where are the other proposals to 
help fix that? Yet, the No. 1 proposal we saw circulating in July was, 
right off the bat, $300 billion coming off the backs of seniors. That 
same proposal is still circulating in the Halls of Congress. My 
colleague and I are here this afternoon to say that it is not the 
proposal we should be considering.
  So I hope our other colleagues will stand up to protect seniors, 
particularly women, who are living longer, and make sure they have 
these important Social Security benefits.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Ms. CANTWELL. Yes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. First of all, I compliment the Senator for the really 
wonderful teaching she just did on this issue. She is a member of the 
Finance Committee, and with all they are doing in Social Security, 
hasn't there been a hearing in the Finance Committee on the chained 
CPI, and have experts and senior advocacy groups shared their views 
with the Congress?
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I can say to the Senator from Maryland 
that in my time period there, I don't remember any hearing or briefing 
on chained CPI that was the focus of the hearing. I don't know if in 
the last 15 or 20 years somebody hasn't suggested or had a hearing on 
it.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. How many years has the Senator been on the committee?
  Ms. CANTWELL. Two years.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. In those 2 years, this has not come up.
  I have another question about the Finance Committee, which also has 
jurisdiction over health care. Is it the Senator's understanding that 
both in the supercommittee and other reforms, Congress's intent is to 
raise premiums and copayments and a variety of other things on seniors? 
Is that one of those things out there in the ether?
  Ms. CANTWELL. I can tell the Senator from Maryland that there are 
lots of ideas that people are suggesting. I don't know the details of 
the supercommittee or to say the Finance Committee is backing up the 
supercommittee on those ideas. I know we have to live within our 
budget, and we have to make some tough decisions.
  There are many positives in the health care law that are about 
allowing seniors to stay in their homes and receive care as opposed to 
going into nursing homes, which is very positive and helps reduce 
significantly the cost of health care. There are things in there that 
will help us get more transparency on drug prices. Many of us would 
like to have direct negotiations on drug prices and drive the costs 
down even further for seniors. And obviously there are reforms that 
will help us get more efficient in the delivery system. Those are 
things you can accentuate by moving more quickly.
  I know the Presiding Officer, coming from Minnesota, with the Mayo 
Clinic, certainly understands about outcome-based health care, 
preventive medicine, and those things seniors would like to see in 
reform that actually deliver better care and drive down costs. Those 
are the proposals that I think we should be discussing, that are 
positive for seniors, will help seniors, and will deliver the kind of 
care that is more efficient and cost-effective. But asking them to take 
it right on the chin with something like this proposal, as my colleague 
outlined as well, is something we are not willing to do.
  I thank the Chair and the Senator from Maryland for her tireless 
leadership on behalf of women in America and making sure they can make 
do in this tough economy.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________