[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13685-13701]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     VETERANS JOBS CORPS ACT OF 2012--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion to invoke 
cloture.
  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. 476, S. 3457, a bill to require the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a veterans jobs 
     corps, and for other purposes.
         Harry Reid, John F. Kerry, Bernard Sanders, Kent Conrad, 
           Al Franken, Tom Udall, Christopher A. Coons, Mark 
           Begich, Patty Murray, Bill Nelson, Amy Klobuchar, 
           Thomas R. Carper, Robert Menendez, Jim Webb, Kirsten E. 
           Gillibrand, Jeff Merkley, Jack Reed.

  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 S. 3457, a bill to require the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs to establish a veterans job corps, 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner), are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 95, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 191 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

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

                                NAYS--1

       
     Paul
       

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Johnson (SD)
     Kirk
     Rubio
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 95, the nays are 1. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.


                            Vote Explanation

 Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, a military career is one of the 
most honorable professions that our young men and women can pursue, and 
each of us is indebted to our veterans for their service.
  In this challenging economic time, it is more important than ever 
that we do what we can to connect well qualified veterans not just with 
jobs, but with careers. Our veterans demonstrate the skills, knowledge, 
leadership and professionalism that allow them to excel in almost any 
career field if they are given the right opportunities.
  How we treat this generation of military veterans who have served in 
Iraq and Afghanistan will influence the next generation of young men 
and women who might consider a career in our military. Unfortunately, 
we sometimes fall short when it comes to connecting veterans with jobs, 
and some veterans struggle to find careers that allow them to achieve 
their full potential.
  That is why I have been involved for several months now in a unique 
partnership of U.S. utility industry leaders to actively recruit and 
employ returning veterans. Troops to Energy helps our veterans 
successfully transition from military service into civilian careers in 
the utility and engineering industries.
  Some reports show that a staggering 29 percent of veterans between 
the ages of 18 and 24 who served in Iraq or Afghanistan were unemployed 
last year. That is more than three times the national unemployment 
level and unacceptably high.
  We must do better.
  That is why I support the Veterans Jobs Corps Act of 2012, which will 
create additional opportunities for veterans to transition into career 
fields in which their military skills are readily transferrable.
  I am not able to vote on this important legislation today because I 
am attending the funeral services for a dear friend, but I want the 
record to reflect my strong support for this legislation and for our 
military men and women, their families, and our veterans.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                            Financial Crisis

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, there has been, appropriately enough, a 
lot of discussion about our $16 trillion national debt and our $1 
trillion Federal deficit. This is, in fact, an enormously important 
issue, and it is an issue that Congress must address. But it must 
address this crisis in a way that is fair to the middle class and to 
working families and our seniors and our kids. It is an issue that must 
be addressed, but it must be addressed fairly.
  When we talk about the deficit and the national debt, it is important 
to remember how we got to where we are today. We can simply go back 10 
years or so to January 2001 when President Clinton left office and 
President Bush assumed the Presidency. At that particular moment in 
history, in January 2001, I hope everybody remembers not only did this 
country have a $236 billion surplus, all of the projections for the 
future at that point were that that surplus was going to grow and grow 
and grow. In fact, at that point, this was one of the great debates 
taking place in Congress: What do we do with all of that money? How 
much do we give back in tax breaks? How much do we put into Social 
Security? That was the debate in January 2001.
  So before we discuss how we go forward in deficit reduction, with a 
trillion-dollar deficit, it is important to remember that, and it is 
important to remember how we got to where we are today.
  How we got to where we are today really, in a significant way, is not 
complicated. President Bush assumed office and within a few years we 
were

[[Page 13686]]

fighting not just one war in Afghanistan but another war in Iraq. I 
hope the American people appreciate that many of the ``deficit 
hawks''--the people who tell us: Oh, gee, we have to cut Social 
Security and Medicare and Medicaid and nutrition and education; we have 
to cut, cut, cut, cut--when asked to pay for those wars had nothing to 
say.
  Paul Ryan, Mr. Romney's Vice Presidential nominee, chairman of the 
House Budget Committee, voted for the wars but forgot to pay for them. 
Nobody knows exactly how much these two wars will end up costing, but 
the guess is that by the time we take care of the last veteran 70 years 
from now, those wars may run up over $3 trillion, and we did not pay 
for them to the tune of one penny, all put on the credit card, all 
added to the deficit.
  I find it somewhat unusual that many of our Republican ``deficit 
hawks,'' who stand here on the floor of the Senate every day and tell 
us how deeply concerned they are about the deficit all voted for huge 
tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires to the tune of $1 trillion 
over a 10-year period.
  Well, you do not give huge tax breaks to the rich and not offset it 
if you are serious about the deficit and not being hypocritical. Many 
of my Republican friends, during the Bush years, voted for the 
insurance company-written Medicare Part D prescription drug program, 
written by the insurance companies and the drug companies. It is going 
to cost us about $400 billion over a 10-year period.
  How did we pay for that program? Oh, I guess we did not pay for it at 
all. Our deficit hawk friends voted for that program, which was good 
politics, I guess. They forgot to pay for it. Add another $400 billion 
to the deficit.
  It is important to understand that today, in the midst of this 
horrendous recession, the issue is not just cuts, cuts, cuts. The issue 
is that right now, today, at 15.2 percent, revenue as a percentage of 
gross domestic product is lower than at any time in the last 60 years. 
Because we deregulated Wall Street--Republicans wanted that; some 
Democrats wanted that--we allowed investor banks to merge with 
commercial banks, to merge with insurance companies, and, as a result 
of the illegal behavior on Wall Street, we were driven into this 
recession: mass unemployment, businesses go under, less tax revenue 
comes in, and, at 15.2 percent, revenue today as a percentage of GDP is 
the lowest it has been in 60 years.
  So those are some of the reasons that today we are experiencing a 
trillion-dollar deficit and a $16 trillion national debt. My Republican 
friends will say: Well, you know, Bernie, be that as it may, yes, maybe 
we should have paid for the wars; maybe we should not have given tax 
breaks to billionaires when the rich are doing very well; maybe we 
should have paid for Medicare Part D; maybe we should have not 
deregulated Wall Street. But be that as it may, that is water over the 
dam. We are where we are right now. We have got to go forward on 
deficit reduction.
  So what are their ideas? Well, Mitt Romney has not been as clear as I 
think he should be about his ideas. But we do have a blueprint from our 
Republican friends in the Ryan budget. As you know, Congressman Ryan is 
chairman of the Budget Committee. He presented a budget. It was passed 
by the Republican House. Here is some of what the Republican budget is 
about.
  What the Republicans want to do is to make cuts to Social Security 
and to raise the retirement age. I want to say a word about Social 
Security right now. It is an issue I feel very strongly about. I think 
a lot of Americans do not know this. Social Security, because it is 
funded by the payroll tax and not the general Treasury, has not 
contributed one nickel to our deficits. Social Security today has a 
$2.7 trillion surplus and can pay out all benefits owed to all eligible 
Americans for the next 21 years. In my view, it would be wrong, it 
would be deeply wrong, to consider cuts in Social Security as part of 
deficit reduction, because Social Security has not contributed a nickel 
to the deficit. But our Republican friends support cuts in Social 
Security. And many of them over a period of years want to move toward 
the privatization of Social Security.
  The Ryan budget would end Medicare as we know it in a 10-year period. 
What does that mean? What that means is that in 10 years, if you are 70 
years of age, you would be given a voucher for $8,000, as I understand 
the number. Let's assume that an individual, a 70-year-old, 75-year-old 
individual walks into a doctor's office, and the doctor says: Joe, 
Mary, I am sorry to tell you this, but you are dealing with cancer. We 
are going to have to send you to a hospital. There are a whole lot of 
treatments you are going to have to undertake. Those treatments are 
going to cost you tens of thousands of dollars, if not more. That 
individual then goes to his or her insurance company and says: I have 
$8,000 to buy an insurance policy.
  What do you think that insurance agent is going to tell that 
individual when that person is facing tens and tens of thousands of 
dollars of medical bills? That insurance company's function is to make 
money. They are not going to say: Oh, sure, give us the $8,000 so we 
can spend $50,000 on health care costs for you. It is not going to 
happen. That insurance company is going to say: There is the door. Try 
somebody else. That is going to happen to a whole lot of people.
  You can think of what the end of that story is. The end of the story 
is, if that family, that individual, does not have any money, he or she 
is going to go to their kids. If they do not have any money, the 
outcome is not going to be good, because that person simply will not 
have the treatment he or she needs.
  The Ryan budget proposes to cut $770 billion over a 10-year period 
from Medicaid. That would result in at least 14 million Americans 
losing their health insurance and would also cut nursing home 
assistance in half, threatening the long-term care of some 10 million 
senior citizens. Many people do not know that. Many people say: Well, 
you know, Medicaid is for the poor. It is certainly true that millions 
of low-income kids, deservedly, through the Children's Health Insurance 
Program, get their health insurance with significant help from Medicaid 
and State money. But what people do not understand is that Medicaid is 
also a major contributor toward nursing home care.
  I want the average middle-class family to understand that if their 
mom or their pop develops Alzheimer's or some other very difficult 
situation, cannot stay at home, cannot stay with their kids, has to be 
put in a nursing home, which is pretty expensive, understand that all 
over this country, Medicaid is putting money into making sure that 
elderly people can stay in nursing homes with some degree of dignity.
  But it is not just Social Security or Medicare and Medicaid our 
Republican friends are going after. In my State of Vermont, and I am 
sure in Minnesota, we have lower income working-class kids who no 
longer can go to college because college is too expensive. We have 
other young people who are graduating college $25,000, $50,000 in debt, 
unable to find jobs which help them pay off that debt.
  In my view, the Pell grant program, which is the major way in 
Washington we help low- and moderate-income kids--I think that is too 
low; we are not helping enough kids with enough resources. But the Ryan 
budget would slash Pell grants by about 60 percent next year alone. So 
if you are a parent or you are a young person in college, that is how 
they intend to balance the budget.
  In the midst of this horrendous recession, older people, lower income 
people are struggling. It is very easy to forget here in the confines 
of the Senate, but there are millions of Americans today wondering how 
they are going to feed their kids tonight, who open the refrigerator, 
there is no food in that refrigerator, who depend upon food stamps. 
Half of the food stamp money goes to the elderly and children. They 
want to make devastating cuts in food stamps.
  My main point is pretty simple. The deficit is a serious issue and we 
have got to address it. But it would not only be immoral, it would be 
bad economic

[[Page 13687]]

policy to move toward deficit reduction, to move toward a balanced 
budget, on the backs of millions and millions of seniors and children 
and working families who today, as a result of this terrible recession, 
are already struggling to keep their heads above water. You do not 
balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable people in this 
country. That is bad economic policy. That is immoral. There are ways 
to move forward which can achieve the same goals but without hurting 
people who are already in pain.
  What we do not talk about too much in Congress is who is winning and 
who is losing in the current American economy. I want to bring forth a 
few facts that I think the American people and my colleagues should be 
familiar with. That is, No. 1, in America today we have the most 
unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on Earth 
and worse in America today than at any time since the 1920s. We have in 
America today--and people should check it out; they may not believe me 
when I say this. You have got one family, the Waltons of Wal-Mart fame, 
one family owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of the American 
people. One family owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent.
  And our Republican friends say: That is not enough. We have to give 
those people, billionaires, even more tax breaks. Today the top 1 
percent owns about 41 percent of the wealth of America. The bottom 60 
percent--that is a significant majority of the American people added 
all together--own about 2.3 percent of the wealth of America: Top 1 
percent, 41 percent; bottom 60 percent, 2.3 percent.
  Common sense and decency would suggest that when a few people have 
incredible wealth, when a few people are seeing their incomes and their 
wealth grow rapidly while the middle class is shrinking and poverty is 
increasing, common sense and common decency suggests that you ask the 
people on top whose effective tax rate is the lowest in decades to 
start paying their fair share of taxes before you cut Social Security, 
before you cut Medicare, Medicaid, education and nutrition programs.
  Right now, about one out of four major profitable corporations is 
paying zero in taxes. We have had instances which I have portrayed here 
on the floor of the Senate of some of the most profitable corporations 
in America in a given year paying nothing in Federal income taxes, and, 
in fact, getting a rebate from the IRS.
  Well, before you tell the elderly and children that they have to 
experience cuts when they cannot afford it, maybe you say to corporate 
America: Sorry, we are going to end the loopholes you currently are 
enjoying. Every single year we are losing about $100 billion in tax 
revenue because corporations and wealthy individuals are stashing their 
money in tax havens in the Cayman islands, Bermuda, and elsewhere. They 
are ``patriotic'' Americans who love this country so much they are 
stashing their money abroad in order to avoid paying taxes in this 
country.
  Maybe before you cut education, maybe before you cut back on 
infrastructure, we make sure that we do away with these tax havens and 
these tax shelters for millionaires and billionaires and large 
corporations.
  Lastly, we have tripled military spending since 1997. Right now the 
United States is spending almost as much as the rest of the world 
combined. We spend over 4 percent of our GDP on the military. Our 
friends in Europe--many of the countries there provide health care to 
all of their people, educational opportunities stronger than we do to 
our people--are spending 2 percent. We are spending twice as much in 
GDP on defense. Maybe it is time to take a hard look at a lot of the 
waste and inefficiency that currently exists in the Defense Department.
  On my Web site, sanders.senate.gov, we have a whole list of ways that 
we can bring in revenue, where we can make cuts which are fair, which 
protect the middle class and working families and the most vulnerable 
people in this country.
  I am going to do everything I can to make sure we do not go forward 
in terms of deficit reduction by punishing people who are already 
hurting and then giving more tax breaks to millionaires and 
billionaires. That is bad economic policy. That is immoral. It is not 
something we should be doing.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Missile Defense

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, several of us have talked about the tragic 
terrorist attack on America 11 years ago today. I think we all remember 
where we were and what we were doing at the time. I remember so well 
going up to New York to Ground Zero and seeing the people who were 
involved and talking to the families of some of the firemen who lost 
their lives. As tragic as that is, I have to ask the question: Is there 
any doubt that those terrorists, if they had the ability to send a 
weapon over to the United States, would do that?
  I look back sometimes wistfully to the days of the Cold War when it 
was the USSR and the United States. They were predictable and we were 
predictable. But it is different. Such concepts as mutually assured 
destruction at that time were somewhat meaningful and were very 
effective. It is not effective now because we are dealing with people 
who want to die. It is a different environment altogether.
  On this 11th year, on this particular day, when I think about 
President Obama's first budget 4 years ago, he did a lot of things I 
thought were very destructive to our military, and I have talked about 
that on the floor several times. He did away with the F-22, the only 
fifth-generation vehicle. He did away with our lift capacity of the C-
17. He did away with the future combat system. I think people are aware 
of that, but something people may not be aware of that happened in that 
same budget was doing away with the Poland site of the ground-based 
interceptor.
  Think back to the decision that was made in this country that we had 
to prepare ourselves for Iran having the capability of a weapon that 
could be sent all the way over to the United States. We have ground-
based interceptors in Alaska, all the way down to southern California. 
So anything coming from the west I feel very comfortable about, but 
coming from the other direction, coming from Iran, that is not the 
case. So we recognized some 6 or 7 years ago that we were going to have 
to have some kind of a ground-based interceptor that would take care of 
a missile coming from the east. I was part of that. So we did that in 
both the Czech Republic and in Poland. The Czech Republic had to be 
willing to have a radar site and Poland had to be willing to take on 
Russia, which didn't want them to have this capability, and we put a 
ground-based interceptor in Poland to take care of anything coming from 
that direction. We did that, but in his first budget President Obama 
did away with it. They tried to say that maybe that was not an accurate 
assessment, but the 2007 NIE--National Intelligence Estimate--concluded 
that Iran could develop an intercontinental missile capability by 2015. 
Less than a year later DOD stated in its April 2010 report on Iran's 
military that they sent to Congress--and I remember this very well:

       With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran could probably 
     develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) 
     capable of reaching the United States by 2015.

  That is totally consistent with what they said back in 2007.
  In place of the third site, the Obama administration pitched a new 
missile defense plan, the European Phased Adaptive Approach with an 
incremental deployment of sea, land, and air versions, and so forth. 
One thing we all agree on is that the SM-3 Block IB is a short- to 
medium-range defense mechanism. The SM-3 Block IIA is short to medium 
range. The one that would

[[Page 13688]]

take the place and would have the capability of the ground-based 
interceptor in Poland is the SM-3 Block IIB. That is still a concept. 
It is on the drawing board. We know Iran is going to have that 
capability by 2015 and they say maybe a deployment date by 2020. That 
leaves the United States of America and Europe unprotected for 5 years.
  Now, although I say unprotected, there is some level of protection 
there. They talk about the AEGIS ships; however, in subsequent budgets 
the President has cut the AEGIS ships in their capability and the 
number of missiles that they carry to the point where it leaves us 
still unprotected--not just us but also Europe.
  Fast-forward to today and DOD's April 2012 report, the report on 
Iran, which, again, states:

       Iran has boosted the lethality and effectiveness of 
     existing systems with accuracy and improvements and new 
     submunition payloads. Iran may be technically capable of 
     flight testing an intercontinental ballistic missile by 2015.

  Secretary Panetta confirmed this. He is the Secretary of Defense. He 
said earlier this year on ``60 Minutes'' that he believes Iran would be 
able to produce a nuclear weapon in about a year, and then it would 
take them another 1 to 2 years in order to put it on a deliverable 
vehicle. Again, that is around 2015, leaving a 5-year gap between the 
date when our interceptors become operational and the date that Iran 
fields a nuclear ballistic missile capable of threatening Europe and 
the United States.
  In this year's budget request President Obama cut $250 million from 
the THAAD system procurement, procuring 36 interceptors instead of 42. 
He cuts THAAD fire units from 9 to 6 and cut $175 million in AEGIS. 
Again, that is part of the system that would replace the ground-based 
interceptor in Poland that is already under construction. The SM-3 
procurement would be delayed, procuring 29 SM-3 Block IB interceptors 
instead of 46; in other words, dramatically cutting down our capability 
at the same time that there could be no doubt in anyone's mind from 
what I said that 2015 is a realistic date when Iran would have the 
capability of not just the weapon but a delivery system.
  Additionally, the President has failed to plan or program enough 
AEGIS ships in the budget to provide full coverage. In other words, 
they can move them around. They have a good rocket capability. I have 
been supportive of the AEGIS system, but he is cutting down on the 
number of them. Those should just be there for the protection of Europe 
and not the protection of the United States.
  At the end of President Obama's now infamous meeting with Russian 
President Dmitri Medvedev on March 26 of this year, President Obama 
said--not knowing that the mic was open:

       On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this 
     can be solved, but it's important for him [incoming Russian 
     President Vladimir Putin] to give me space.

  That is President Obama's words. He continues:

       This is my last election. After my election, I have more 
     flexibility.

  Thinking back 11 years ago at the tragedy that immediately killed 
3,000 people in that horrible terrorist attack, again, I ask the same 
question I asked a few minutes ago: Is there any doubt in anyone's mind 
that a person would hesitate to come over on a well-orchestrated 
terrorist attack on America and use a system delivered on some type of 
vehicle to the eastern part of the United States? I say no. I can't 
imagine anyone believes that is not a possibility.
  As tragic as 3,000 people being killed was, it doesn't take much of 
an imagination to look at any type of missile hitting a major American 
city. We wouldn't be talking about 3,000; we would be talking about 
300,000 or even 3 million.
  I think this is the day, on the 11th anniversary, that we need to 
take the warning we received 11 years ago and look into the future not 
just for ourselves--in my case, for my 20 kids and grandkids. We cannot 
subject ourselves. We need to take care of this horrible gap in our 
defense of an incoming missile coming from the east as quickly as 
possible.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Watch the Helpers

  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, since this is a day of remembrance of 9/
11, when I started my day this morning, I picked up a book I read from 
time to time. It is called ``One Simple Act'' by Debbie Macomber, and 
it is about gratitude and being generous. The very first paragraph I 
picked up happens to be about 9/11. It says:

       Watch the Helpers
       After the bombing of the twin towers at New York's Trade 
     Center, the nation was stunned. Parents didn't know what to 
     say to their children. They'd seen such evil things on 
     television that even adults couldn't put the events into any 
     kind of context. When a few parents wrote to Mr. Rogers, the 
     beloved children's television personality, to ask for advice, 
     Fred Rogers said, ``Tell them to watch the helpers.'' What 
     wise advice. I've thought about his answer many times. When 
     tragedy hits, don't focus on the faces of pain and horror. 
     Let your eyes follow those who are rescuing, feeding, 
     healing, sweeping, comforting, and rebuilding. On 9/11, it 
     was the selfless firefighters who took center stage. They 
     will be remembered long after the evildoers are forgotten.

  What good advice: Watch the helpers.
  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. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Congressional Review Act

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to speak to an issue that 
threatens the very viability of the U.S. Senate.
  Last July the Obama administration, using the flimsiest of arguments, 
granted themselves the authority to waive the Federal welfare work 
requirements. Whether or not what the Obama administration intends to 
accomplish with these waivers is good welfare policy has been the 
subject of robust debate.
  I am not here to argue the merits or lack thereof of the underlying 
welfare policy goals of the Obama administration. What I am here to do 
is to make a plea to my fellow Senators: as Senators, we simply cannot 
let this action stand.
  If we fail to stand together as Senators in defense of our 
constitutional duty to be the ones to draft legislation, we might as 
well pack our bags and go home because we will have opened the door for 
this administration and future administrations to unilaterally decide 
they can waive precedent, congressional intent, and actual legislative 
language on which Senators have scrupulously debated and compromised.
  If we do not stand together as a Senate, we will be ceding our 
authority to the executive branch. The longstanding implications of 
this could possibly extend to welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, disability 
policy, child welfare, and Social Security Programs. Allow me to 
elaborate.
  According to the Obama administration, because section 1115 of the 
Social Security Act allows them certain waiver authority over section 
402 of the Social Security Act, which deals with a State's welfare 
plan, and section 402 cites section 407, then the administration has 
waiver authority over section 407, which enumerates State welfare work 
requirements.
  This doesn't make any sense.
  I have been a leader in the Senate on welfare for nearly two decades. 
I helped draft and manage the floor during the 1996 overhaul of 
welfare. Five years later, I worked across the aisle with John Breaux 
of Louisiana and others to craft the so-called tripartisan proposal for 
welfare reauthorization. The

[[Page 13689]]

Breaux-Hatch proposal became the basis for the Senate Finance Committee 
bill that was marked up in the summer of 2002.
  Much of the work Senator Breaux and I accomplished made its way into 
the Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone 
bill--the so-called PRIDE bill--that was reported twice out of the 
Senate Finance Committee.
  In all that work on welfare, not once--not one time, not ever--was 
there any discussion of allowing States to waive State work 
requirements. If anyone had raised it, Republican or Democrat, they 
would have been laughed out of the room--and for good reason. The crux 
of the deal and the most integral feature of the 1996 act was to give 
States flexibility to design their own welfare programs but also 
require them to meet meaningful performance measures. The idea that 
anyone would contemplate allowing States to waive these performance 
measures would have been preposterous, even ludicrous.
  So allowing the executive branch the authority to waive welfare work 
requirements has never, ever been a part of any discussion of welfare 
reform.
  The concept of the executive branch having the authority to waive the 
1996 welfare work requirements also did not occur during the previous 
two administrations. It just never came up because no one thought it 
was possible.
  The administration likes to point to a 2005 letter from Governors in 
support of the PRIDE bill as justification for their unprecedented 
action, but what they fail to note is that this letter was not sent to 
President Bush, it was sent to Members of Congress, who, the Governors 
correctly believed, were the only ones with the constitutional 
authority to give the States flexibility.
  This point bears repeating: Until the July 12 informational memo to 
States, no one ever thought the executive branch could waive welfare 
work requirements. I would even venture to speculate that the Obama 
administration itself does not seriously think it had the authority to 
waive welfare work requirements, and here is why I suspect this is the 
case.
  One of the few bipartisan bills that was actually enacted during the 
112th session of Congress was legislation I wrote with my partner on 
the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Baucus. This legislation--the, 
``Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act''--included 
a provision I drafted that allowed the Department of Health and Human 
Services the authority to grant certain child welfare waivers. It 
specifically allowed HHS to waive provisions included in Title IV-E of 
the Social Security Act. Congress gave HHS that authority because the 
Congress had been asked by States for flexibility to waive certain 
provisions of Title IV-E and because, just as everyone assumed the 
executive branch could not waive section 407 of the Social Security 
Act, no one believed they could waive Title IV-E of the Social Security 
Act.
  But if we go and look up section 402, just as there is a reference to 
section 407 contained within that section, so, too, is there a 
reference to Title IV-E. If the administration really believes in their 
heart of hearts they have carte blanche to waive whatever is even 
mentioned in section 402, why did they have to wait around for Congress 
to give them that authority? The answer, of course, is the Obama 
Administration never had the authority to begin with, and I believe 
even they know that to be true today.
  The real issue, beyond the rhetoric, is that if the Senate lets this 
action stand unchallenged, if the Senate does not speak as one body, 
united, then our inaction will embolden this administration--and future 
administrations, I might add--to bypass the constitutionally mandated 
job of the Congress to enact laws whenever it suits their pleasure or 
political aims--in other words, to take over the legislative function.
  The Congress does not have many tools in our toolkit to thwart 
administrative overreach, but one of those tools is the Congressional 
Review Act. The CRA, as it is referred to, allows for Senate fast track 
authority to disapprove a rule that is submitted from an agency in the 
event an administration attempts to circumvent the CRA by issuing other 
forms of guidance that should have been submitted as a rule. The 
Government Accountability Office, which has standing with our Senate 
Parliamentarians, can determine that an agency action meets the 
definition of a rule as established by the Administrative Procedures 
Act and that therefore the CRA applies.
  Last July Congressman Dave Camp, chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee, and I asked the GAO to determine whether the so-called 
guidance to States submitted by the Obama administration was a rule and 
applicable to the CRA. Last week Chairman Camp and I received word the 
GAO had determined that the welfare waiver policy was, in fact, a rule 
and subject to the CRA. This week both Chairman Camp and I will 
introduce resolutions of disapproval under the CRA for the 
administration's welfare waiver policies. The House will mark up and 
pass their resolution this week. The Senate can act, under fast track 
procedures which limit debate during the week of October 1, 2012.
  I have taken the floor today to ask that the Senate pass my 
resolution of disapproval on a unanimous vote.
  It is imperative that we send the executive branch the unambiguous 
signal that the Senate's ability to craft legislation--to do the work 
tasked to us by the Constitution--will not be trifled with by this or 
any other administration. If the Senate does not speak with one unified 
voice on this issue, then I firmly believe we will have forfeited our 
relevance in future debates over welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, foster 
care, and Social Security, just to mention a few.
  If any administration can capriciously deem themselves to have 
unlimited waiver authority over anything mentioned in provisions 
referred to in section 1115, then the Senate is, for all intents and 
purposes, irrelevant. Sure, we can have our debates and develop our 
expertise and write our laws, but, colleagues, that won't mean a hill 
of beans if an administration can come along and just waive everything 
we have worked so hard to get right. Colleagues and friends, we just 
can't let that happen.
  I know that many in this Chamber support President Obama. I know also 
that many of these same Senators wish he had not taken this action. But 
as Members of what I still believe is the greatest deliberative body in 
the world, we have to put partisanship aside for the greater good of 
the Senate. If Senator Byrd were sitting here today, I cannot imagine 
he would allow this to happen. And I can't imagine anybody on the other 
side will allow this to happen.
  We have to send as strong a signal as possible that administrative 
overreach will not stand; that no matter what our political persuasion, 
the Senate stands together and we will speak with one voice to say in 
no uncertain terms that we will not be ridden roughshod over, that our 
constitutional rights as lawmakers will not be trampled on, and that we 
will do everything in our power to preserve and defend these rights.
  To that end, I urge colleagues to support my efforts to stop this 
unprecedented executive overreach. Support the resolution to 
disapprove. Support the Senate. Let's stand up for this body. Whether 
you are a Democrat or a Republican, we have to make it clear to the 
other two branches of government that we have certain rights and we 
have certain powers that no President and no court can overrule. It is 
important that we stand up on this issue. If we don't, I hesitate to 
say what could happen in the future. It ain't gonna be pretty. All I 
can say is that this is an important issue, it is one every Senator in 
the Senate ought to consider important, and we ought to set 
partisanship aside and do this in the best interest of the Senate and 
in the best interest of our legislative ability to act.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown of Ohio). The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page 13690]]


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


                           Romney-Ryan Budget

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk again on the 
devastating so-called Ryan budget--which, of course, is now the Romney-
Ryan budget. I will speak about that very shortly, but I also want to 
focus some attention on how the Ryan budget is preventing us from 
getting a farm bill this year. We have a farm bill we passed in the 
Senate, but the House can't get it done. Earlier this year the Senate 
passed a bipartisan farm bill. It had broad support from Republicans 
and Democrats, all the farm groups, consumer groups, and environmental 
groups. With all of that support, one would think it would be easy for 
the House, but the House has not followed suit. Unable or perhaps 
unwilling to bring the farm bill to the House floor, they similarly 
refuse to take up the Senate bill. As a result, our farm policy has 
languished at a time when farm country is literally burning up because 
of a drought.
  As I understand it, the House is going to adjourn this week and go 
home without taking any action on a farm bill and leave our farmers and 
ranchers in the lurch when all the House needs to do is take up the 
Senate-passed bill, pass it, send it to the President, and he will sign 
it. Again, we passed the bill here with Republicans, Democrats, all the 
farm groups, consumer groups, and environmental groups supporting it. 
We even made a $23 billion contribution to reducing the deficit in the 
farm bill.
  Well, it seems worth noting that one of the reasons the House can't 
act is seemingly because of the Ryan budget, which, of course, we know 
is just a proposal. The House has passed it. I think they voted on it 
34 times, if I am not mistaken.
  The Ryan budget calls for draconian cuts to our Federal nutrition 
programs; that is, the SNAP program, otherwise known as food stamps. It 
helps low-income families and families with maybe a modest income. 
Maybe they lost a job and are in transition and need support for 1 or 2 
months before they get back on their feet. It helps with summer feeding 
programs for kids, feeding programs for low-income elderly, and feeding 
programs that go to daycare centers. In other words, we have an 
abundance, and we are going to use this abundance to help make sure no 
one goes to bed hungry and people have adequate nutrition in our 
society.
  Well, the Ryan budget made a draconian cut in the nutrition programs. 
Many of the House Republicans are saying they will not support a farm 
bill that doesn't have those draconian cuts, which I am proud to say 
the Senate bill does not have.
  I hasten to add, as the former chair of the Senate Agriculture 
Committee, I long advocated cutting wasteful agricultural spending. For 
years I led the effort to get rid of direct payments, which the Senate 
bill does finally, and contributes, as I said, $23 billion in deficit 
reduction. So I think this situation shows what the Ryan budget is. It 
is emblematic of the Ryan budget.
  Not only is the Ryan budget devastating for working and low-income 
Americans, but its insistence on cutting benefits for low-income 
Americans is getting in the way of setting commonsense policy for our 
farmers and ranchers as well. It is remarkable that so many people in 
the House in the middle of a drought would say: I am not going to vote 
for a farm bill that is important to our farmers and ranchers; I will 
not vote for it unless I can cut nutrition benefits for tens of 
millions of struggling Americans.
  That is what the House Republicans are saying: They will not vote for 
a farm bill that will help our farmers and ranchers and is supported by 
every major farm group, all the consumer groups, the environmental 
groups, and it is supported in the Senate by a lot of Republicans. It 
is a bipartisan bill supported by the ranking member of the Agriculture 
Committee, Senator Roberts of Kansas, former chair of the Agriculture 
Committee in the House. We passed that bill and yet the Republicans in 
the House are saying unless we have these draconian cuts to nutrition 
programs they will not pass the farm bill.
  That is the kind of ``my way or the highway'' attitude of the tea 
party Republicans in the House. If they can't have it their very narrow 
way, they will not let the rest of the House act. They will not take up 
a bipartisan bill passed by the Senate.
  Well, it is stunning what the House is refusing to do in refusing to 
pass a farm bill. All I can hope is that someone over there comes to 
their senses and gets that farm bill through before they adjourn and go 
home.
  Now, since we recessed around the 1st of August and just came back 
yesterday, our colleague on the House side, Congressman Paul Ryan, has 
become the Vice Presidential nominee for the Republican ticket under, 
of course, Governor Romney, who has the nomination for President. 
Congressman Paul Ryan is not an unknown entity and not an unknown 
quantity. He has been around a long time. He has been chairman of the 
House Budget Committee, and he has put forward the so-called Ryan 
budget twice.
  Well, what is a budget? A budget is a blueprint. It is like in order 
to build a house, one has to have a blueprint. Well, a budget for a 
city council is a blueprint for what they want to do for the city. A 
State budget talks about how the State is going to move. It is forward 
looking. What are we going to do in the future? The Federal budget is 
the same way. It is our blueprint. It is a blueprint for how we are 
going to move our country forward.
  We have the Ryan budget. I think it is fair for us to take a look at 
that blueprint and let the American people know just what is in that 
budget. We face a fundamental choice in this year's election: Are we 
going to restore, rescue, and rebuild a struggling middle class or are 
we going to ship even more of our wealth and advantages to those at the 
top at the expense of the middle class?
  Well, Republicans made it clear where they stand. They did so when 
nearly every Republican in Congress voted for the Ryan budget plan, and 
Governor Romney embraced the Ryan budget as ``marvelous.'' As I said 
yesterday, that is not exactly a word I think most Americans would use 
to describe something they liked, but I suppose if one is having tea at 
the Ritz and they are in that class of Americans, well, they might use 
the word to describe it as ``marvelous.''
  At the very centerpiece of the Ryan budget is a dramatic shift of 
more wealth to those at the top. It targets huge new tax cuts for those 
at the top. Here is what it would do: $265,000 more per year for 
someone making over $1 million a year in income. That is on top of the 
$129,000 they are already getting from the Bush tax cuts. The Ryan 
budget would extend the Bush tax cuts and put $265,000 on top of that 
$129,000, which comes to around $400,000 a year if someone is making 
over $1 million a year.
  We are going to hear a lot this fall about entitlements and cutting 
entitlements. Oh, we have to get a handle on entitlements. When they 
talk about entitlements, mostly Republicans talk about those programs 
that go to help people who are at the bottom rung of the ladder. They 
are talking about things such as the SNAP program, the nutrition 
assistance program or they are talking about job training programs or 
maybe title I. I will talk about education in a minute.
  What about this entitlement? This is an entitlement: If a person is 
making over $1 million a year, under the Ryan budget they will be 
entitled to over $400,000 a year in tax cuts. What about that 
entitlement? No one wants to talk about taking away that entitlement, 
but that is an entitlement.
  The Republican tax cuts would total $4.5 trillion over 10 years. 
Well, how do they pay for it? They don't want to say, but budget and 
tax experts understand this game very well. The Republican budget would 
partially offset these tax cuts by making deep and Draconian cuts that 
undergird the middle class and essentially the quality of life in the 
country--everything from education, student grants and loans, law

[[Page 13691]]

enforcement, clean air and clean water, food safety, medical research, 
highways, bridges, and other infrastructures.
  Lastly, the Republicans offset these new big tax cuts for those at 
the top by actually raising taxes on the middle class. You heard me 
right. The Ryan budget would actually raise taxes on the middle class. 
The Nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that under the Republican 
plan middle-class families with children would see their taxes go up on 
an average of more than $2,000 a year.
  The bottom line is the Ryan budget does not reduce the deficit. The 
Ryan budget has a deficit for the next 28 years. The savings they gain 
is by cutting all of these programs that undergird the middle class and 
by raising taxes on the middle class. Basically, the lion's share of 
that is going to go into tax cuts for the top wealthiest Americans.
  The truth is Representative Ryan is not interested in balancing the 
budget. Even under the best assumptions his budget would not balance 
until 2040, 28 years from now. As I have said, Mr. Ryan is obviously an 
acolyte of former Vice President Cheney who once said in a kind of 
unguarded moment that deficits don't matter. Remember that? Vice 
President Cheney said that. Obviously, George W. Bush and his 
administration took that to heart because we had the biggest deficit in 
history for the 8 years George W. Bush was President.
  Ryan doesn't care about deficits. He only cares about tax cuts for 
the wealthy. They just believe if we give more and more to the top, it 
will magically trickle down on everyone else. We know that doesn't 
work.
  The Romney-Ryan Republican plan is extreme and unbalanced. I am not 
making this up. You don't have to take it from me. Even former House 
Speaker Newt Gingrich criticized the House budget. He called it 
``rightwing social engineering.'' That is what Newt Gingrich called it, 
``rightwing social engineering.'' Newt got that one right.
  The aim of Representative Ryan is to use the deficit crisis as a 
pretext for degrading and dismantling everything from Medicare and 
Medicaid to education, environmental protection, workplace safety, 
medical and scientific research, and on and on. Again, he doubles down 
on the theory that if only we give more to those at the top, it will 
magically trickle down.
  Today I would like to focus specifically on the devastating impact of 
the Romney-Ryan budget on education. It is an unprecedented assault on 
education funding and a grave threat that this poses to school reform 
efforts across the United States.
  I have the unusual perspective on this issue as both the chair of the 
appropriations subcommittee that funds our Federal education programs--
and I might point out that for the last 23 years I have either been the 
chair of that appropriations subcommittee or a ranking member; I have 
been on that subcommittee since 1985--and I am also now the chair of 
the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which authorizes 
the education programs, and I have been on that committee since 1987. I 
have served under distinguished chairmen such as, Senator Kennedy, 
Senator Kassebaum, Senator Jeffords, Senator Gregg from New Hampshire, 
and Senator Enzi. Now I chair it. So for all of these years I have been 
on both the authorizing committee and on the appropriations 
subcommittee.
  I must say I have been heartened by the exciting work being done in 
schools across the country to improve the quality of instruction for 
our students to close the achievement gap and graduate more students 
who are both college and career ready. Forty-five States and the 
District of Columbia have collaborated to create high-quality, common 
education standards, common core standards. The Obama administration's 
Race to the Top initiative has jump-started ambitious State-level 
reforms to turn around the Nation's lowest performing schools. In the 
HELP Committee, which I chair, working with Senator Enzi this year, we 
reauthorized on a bipartisan basis the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act. Positive changes are happening in America's schools. 
However, it is wishful thinking to continue to expect improvements if 
we continue to lay off tens of thousands of teachers, increase class 
sizes, and reduce instructional time.
  As I said, Senator Enzi and I worked very hard to get a 
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act through 
our committee on a bipartisan basis, but we have been unable to get it 
on the floor, so we will have to do it again next year. But if we look 
to the Ryan budget, we will be laying off tens of thousands of teachers 
and we will increase class sizes and reduce instructional time. Is that 
where we want to go as a country?
  As I said, this plan, which has been embraced by Governor Romney, 
would cut nondefense discretionary spending by 18.9 percent in fiscal 
year 2014--not this upcoming fiscal year but the next fiscal year. 
Let's take a look at what a cut that size would mean for Federal 
education programs. Let's take a look at title I. People ask: What is 
title I? It is the cornerstone of the Federal Government's support for 
elementary and secondary education in this country. The purpose of 
title I--and, by the way, it has been in the law since 1965; a great 
society program, I might add, which has done a world of good for our 
schools all across America. The purpose of title I is to help all 
students, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, meet high 
academic standards. Title I money goes to more than 90 percent of the 
Nation's school districts. Schools have a lot of flexibility with title 
I funds, but they use the money mostly to pay the salaries of teachers 
and teachers' aides who are helping students in danger of falling 
behind.
  Under the Romney-Ryan budget, more than 10,000 schools across the 
country could lose their title I funding in fiscal year 2014. More than 
37,000 teachers could lose their jobs. Not only would this hurt 
students, it is going to put more people out of work.
  This title I program is about $14.5 billion a year. It is a national 
program. What we basically said in 1965 and we have said every year 
since is that elementary and secondary education is basically a local 
and State function. But we want to come in and help those areas that 
have low tax bases, a high proportion of underprivileged kids and low-
income families. We want to come in and help them because there is one 
thing we know: A poorly educated child in one State will not 
necessarily grow up to be a burden in that State; that child can move 
to another State. So as a national policy, we said in 1965 and we have 
every year since, under Republican Presidents and under Democratic 
Presidents, Republican Congresses and Democratic Congresses, we have 
said title I is an important national program. Under the Ryan budget, 
if enacted, more than 10,000 schools would lose their title I funding.
  Let's take a look at another important education program--one 
particularly close to me--and that is the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act. Again, this has been in the law since 1975. The funding 
for this is about $11.6 billion a year. Again, under the Romney-Ryan 
budget, States could lose funding for approximately 25,000 special 
education teachers, aides, and other staff serving children with 
disabilities, again, in the year 2014--25,000 just in 1 year, the year 
2014. This is special education teachers.
  Again, I wish to remind everyone, and I have said many times here 
before, that States are required to provide a free and appropriate 
public education to students with disabilities. A lot of people say 
this is a Federal mandate. This is not a Federal mandate; it is a 
constitutional mandate. Even if the Federal Government didn't provide 
one nickel to any State for IDEA, the State would still have to provide 
a free, appropriate public education because the courts have decided 
that if a State provides a free public education for its students, it 
cannot discriminate. Before they said they couldn't discriminate on the 
basis of sex, national origin, race--Brown v. Board of Education--and 
under PARC v. Pennsylvania, another case, they said we can't 
discriminate on the basis of disability.

[[Page 13692]]

We can't say we are going to collect taxes from all these people, but 
this family with the kid with a disability, they are out, and that kid 
doesn't get an education. We said that is unconstitutional, and I think 
all would recognize that. So States have a constitutional requirement, 
if they provide a free public education, to provide that free, 
appropriate public education to kids with disabilities. Even if Federal 
funding was cut, the States would still have to pay for it. They have 
to educate their students with disabilities.
  If the Romney-Ryan budget were to pass, then what would happen is we 
would offload this cost of education to the States. What would happen? 
State and local taxes would go sky high. States and communities would 
still have to pay their special education teachers. If they are not 
getting enough from the Federal Government, they will have to find 
their own tax revenues to make up the difference. Just keep in mind, 
under the Romney-Ryan budget, approximately 25,000 special education 
teachers would not be funded under IDEA in 2014. Think about that.
  Let's turn to higher education. Since 1972, we have provided what has 
been known as Pell grants, named after former Senator Claiborne Pell. 
Pell grants are for students who want to go to college. They qualify 
for these grants because of low income. Another one of those terrible 
entitlements, right? If a person is low income and they want to go to 
college, they get a Pell grant. It has been a lifesaver for so many 
families who otherwise could not afford to send their kids to college.
  As we all know, a college education now is more important than ever. 
New jobs in every industry from manufacturing, construction, health 
care, and public health administration require workers who have the 
skill and the education. Look what happened in the recent recession. 
Workers with a college education have led the economic recovery. People 
with a bachelor's degree or better have gained 2 million jobs since the 
end of the recession. Meanwhile, workers with only a high school 
diploma or less have lost more than 230,000 jobs. There are over--I 
just saw it printed today--about 2 million jobs in America that are 
there but are not being filled because of lack of qualification for 
workers. That is education. So one would hope the Romney-Ryan budget, 
which they tout as being for creating jobs, would put a high priority 
on getting people into college, but it does just the opposite. In 
fiscal year 2014, nearly 10 million students could see their Pell 
grants fall, on average, by more than $1,000. Again, under the Romney-
Ryan budget--this is an average, the current average award is $3,831. 
Under the Romney-Ryan budget in 2014, in one fell swoop it would go 
down to $2,599. For some students, that cut could mean the difference 
between whether they pursue higher education or not.
  Let's go to the other end of the education spectrum. I started out 
talking about elementary and secondary and high school and then I 
talked about college Pell grants. Let's look at preschool. Back in 
1992, the Council on Education Funding, consisting of mostly CEOs from 
large corporations, came out with a study and a report on education as 
to what did business in America need in the future looking at 
education. They spent 2 or 3 years having hearings, investigating, and 
doing all that kind of stuff. This is a report from the business 
leaders of America. What did they say in that report? They said 
education begins at birth and the preparation for education begins 
before birth. The whole finding was we need to put more into preschool 
education. That was 20 years ago.
  Last year, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--20 years later--came out 
with another study. This is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These are not 
social scientists; these are businesspeople. The U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce report said we have to put more money into preschool 
education. We, at the Federal level, have been doing that through a 
program called Head Start. We have had Head Start, I think, if I am not 
mistaken, since about 1968. High-quality, early childhood education has 
been proven to save taxpayer dollars in the long run by reducing the 
cost for welfare, special education and, might I add, criminal 
justice--read that ``jail time.'' One of the highest correlating 
factors--in fact, if I am not mistaken, the highest correlating factor 
for people who are incarcerated in our prisons is the lack of a high 
school education.
  Under the Romney-Ryan budget, up to 200,000 low-income children and 
their families could lose access to Head Start--again, in fiscal year 
2014. I am not talking about over the next 10 years, I am talking about 
in 1 year. We have about 970,000 children in Head Start today. In 2014, 
200,000 would leave if the Romney-Ryan budget were to happen. That is 
their blueprint. I have to keep reminding folks, that is their 
blueprint for where they want America to go. This is where they want 
America to go.
  Let me talk about a related topic, and it has a lot to do with 
education; that is, childcare funding. The Child Care and Development 
block grant provides subsidies to low-income families to help pay for 
childcare. These are families who are working, who are looking for 
work, and they depend on these subsidies to do so; otherwise, they 
wouldn't be able to work. By this point, it will come as no surprise 
that the Romney-Ryan budget would force approximately 95,000 low-income 
children across the country to lose access to high-quality childcare in 
fiscal year 2014.
  I think we get the picture. The Romney-Ryan budget is a devastating 
assault on education at all levels. Childcare--and a lot of these 
components have education--Head Start, elementary education, secondary 
education, title I, IDEA, special education, Pell grants for college, 
all devastatingly reduced--again, not over 10 years, in year 2014.
  I am struck by the fact that this budget of Mr. Ryan's is being 
proposed at a time when America's competitors are surging forward. 
China has tripled its investment in education and is building hundreds 
of new universities. Even in times of austerity and shrinking budgets, 
smart countries don't turn a chainsaw on themselves. They continue to 
invest in the future. And the most important investment in the future 
is an investment in education.
  In the months ahead, Congress will likely focus on reducing the 
deficit, and this is appropriate. Certainly any strategy for solving 
our fiscal crisis must include sensible spending cuts, but we should 
not jeopardize our long-term economic growth and recovery by slashing 
education. We have a saying out in farm country: You don't eat your 
seed corn. Our children today, they are our seed corn for the future. 
You do not throw them on the trash heap.
  On their own, the Romney-Ryan budget cuts to education defy common 
sense, but put in the broader context of their budget plan in its 
entirety, these cuts are not just ill-considered, they really smack of 
class warfare. The Romney-Ryan budget demands nothing whatsoever--not 
one dollar--from the wealthiest and most privileged people in America. 
Essentially, the Romney-Ryan budget is Robin Hood in reverse: It robs 
from the poor and gives it to the rich.
  So let's get this straight. The American people need to know this. 
This is their blueprint. Under the Romney-Ryan budget, we have 
devastating assaults on education. Last night I covered health care. 
Others will cover other topics. The Senator from California covered 
transportation and infrastructure.
  So again, under this plan, the United States--under Romney-Ryan--
should set aside $4.5 trillion over the next decade for tax cuts, with 
most of it going to the wealthiest 2 percent, but under the Romney-Ryan 
budget we cannot afford to sustain funding for public education.
  In addition, congressional Republicans specifically want to take away 
the $2,500 American opportunity tax credit used by so many middle-class 
and modest-income families to help cover college costs. Again, because 
of Republicans' determination to further lower tax rates for the 
wealthy, many other middle-class college tax benefits are at risk. This 
is outrageous. This approach does not remotely reflect the

[[Page 13693]]

priorities and values of the American people. We cannot--we cannot--be 
dragged backward into a winner-take-all society where the privileged 
and powerful seize an even greater share of the wealth even as our 
middle class is struggling and declining. For nearly half a century, 
robust Federal investments in quality public schools and access to 
higher education have been a critical pillar undergirding the American 
middle class. The Romney-Ryan budget takes a jackhammer to that pillar.
  Going back to the 1930s, the American people have supported and 
strengthened a uniquely American social contract. That social contract 
says that we will prepare our young and care for our elderly. That 
contract says that if you work hard and play by the rules, you will be 
able to rise to the middle class and even beyond. That social contract 
says that a cardinal role of government is to provide a ladder of 
opportunity so that every American can realistically aspire to the 
American dream. In one fell swoop, the Romney-Ryan blueprint budget 
would rip up that social contract. It would replace it with a survival-
of-the-fittest, winner-take-all philosophy that tells struggling, 
aspiring Americans and their communities: Tough luck, you are on your 
own.
  As President Clinton said in his speech last week: There are two 
philosophies at work here--the Romney-Ryan blueprint budget, which 
says: Tough luck, you are on your own; if you win the lottery, you are 
OK; if you do not, too bad, or the philosophy being proposed by 
President Obama and so many of us here: that we are all in this 
together, the rising tide lifts all boats, that we have a social 
contract that we have adhered to for nearly 80 years now. We will 
invest in our young and care for our elderly. We will make sure there 
is a ladder, a ramp of opportunity for the middle class.
  The ``tough luck, you are on your own'' philosophy of the Romney-Ryan 
budget is not the kind of America that my parents wanted or that they 
built for their children. It is not the kind of America that my 
neighbors in Iowa and across this country want to see.
  So in the weeks ahead, our Nation faces an absolutely fundamental 
choice. I repeat: Are we going to rescue, restore, and rebuild the 
middle class or are we going to continue to shift even more wealth and 
advantages to those at the top, at the expense of the middle class?
  Accumulation of riches by the wealthiest in our society is not the 
same as wealth creation by a society. If we are truly interested in 
creating wealth in our society, we should be investing in education, 
making sure there is a ladder or ramp of opportunity by making sure the 
benefits of our society go to those with new ideas and new information, 
and those people may be kids from very low income families, they may be 
kids with disabilities. That is true wealth creation of a society--not 
just giving more to people at the top.
  So, again, the Romney-Ryan budget makes exactly the wrong choice. I 
disagree with that budget. America remains a tremendously wealthy and 
resourceful nation. Again, when you listen to what the Romney-Ryan 
budget is, when you look at it, it is sort of premised on the fact that 
we are busted, we are broke, we cannot afford childcare, we cannot 
afford title I, we cannot afford Pell grants, we cannot afford it, we 
are broke, but we can find tax breaks for the wealthiest.
  We are not broke. America remains the wealthiest society, the 
wealthiest country the world has ever seen. We have the highest per 
capita income of any major nation. So it kind of begs the question, 
does it not: If we are so rich, why are we so poor, why are we so 
broke? Because there has been a misallocation of capital, more and more 
going to fewer and fewer, not enough being used to educate our kids, 
provide a good college education, make sure we have the highest 
qualified teachers in all of our schools, that we have the best 
principals, that we can have a school system that is second to none in 
the world. That is the kind of America that we should have and that we 
can afford to do. We can afford to do this if we have the right 
blueprint. The Romney-Ryan budget takes us down the wrong road.
  The middle class is the backbone of this country. We have to rescue, 
restore, and rebuild it, and we need leaders who have the backbone to 
do that for our middle class. It is not the Romney-Ryan budget.
  Last night I spoke about the devastation on health care. I discussed 
what would happen in education. Next I am going to come to the floor 
and talk about what is going to happen to working families, what is 
going to happen to people in America when we take away some of the 
protections they have so they do not get injured, they do not get sick, 
so they can show up for work every day healthy. So we are going to look 
again at that devastation. Others will come to the floor and talk about 
the infrastructure and what that means for America.
  Well, I do not often agree with Newt Gingrich, as people know, but he 
was right. This is rightwing social engineering. We do not need that in 
America. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan have put their stamp of approval on 
it. The American people need to know what is in that budget, and we 
intend to tell them between now and the time we adjourn and go home.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Enzi for his patience in 
allowing me to speak for a few minutes in regard to the 11th 
anniversary of September 11. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Eleventh Anniversary of 9/11

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in 
commemorating the 11th anniversary of September 11, 2001. The tragedy 
of 9/11 is forever seared in our Nation's consciousness. The attacks in 
New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia were intended to crush the 
American spirit but instead galvanized it to new strengths.
  After 11 years, the memories are still raw and the pain is real. It 
is for the 3,000 people who perished that day that I stand here on the 
floor of the U.S. Senate and ask everyone: Never let go of those 
memories.
  On that day, terrorists showed their utter lack of humanity; we 
responded by showing the best side of ours. We suffered a grievous loss 
on that day, but we must remember that we are a strong and determined 
nation and we will defeat those who want to do us harm.
  Many of those responsible have been hunted down and brought to 
justice. In the case of Osama bin Laden and many others, justice was 
brought to them. Now there is no doubt that those who wish to do harm 
to America know they do so at their own peril.
  Today, it is clear our men and women in uniform and our intelligence 
community will never rest. They will never waiver. We have come a long 
way since September 11, and we owe so much to those men and women and 
the families who support them. Today, we join to show the world that 
our Nation is united and resolved to defend our freedom and safeguard 
our liberty against any enemy.
  We also take time to remember those who perished on September 11 and 
to remember their families with a special prayer. We reflect on the 
heroism of the firefighters, police officers, medical workers, city 
officials, and ordinary citizens who gave their own lives trying to 
save others.
  Each of us has been affected by 9/11. On September 11 we showed the 
world a brand of resilience that could only be made in America. In the 
minutes, hours, and days after the attacks, Americans showed their 
amazing propensity for compassion, sacrifice, and selflessness. 
Charity, voluntarism, and a reawakening of the American spirit guided 
us through those weeks directly after the attacks. Men and women waited 
in lines for hours to give blood, children donated their savings to 
help with relief efforts, communities sponsored clothing drives, and 
different faith groups held interfaith services.

[[Page 13694]]

Our response showed the world that Americans have an unquenchable love 
of freedom and democracy.
  Now, 11 years later, I stand before you, always remembering that 
stunningly clear day that was to be forever ingrained into our national 
identity. My prayers are still with those who suffered, those still 
suffering, and those we lost. But time has taught me that the way to 
honor the victims of 9/11 is to come together as we did in the days and 
months after 9/11. On that day, we were truly united. September 11 was 
not an attack on Blacks, Whites, Christians, Jews, or Muslims or on 
conservatives or liberals. It was an attack on all of us, and we came 
together accordingly. We helped our neighbors and we helped strangers. 
We reaffirmed our commitment to justice and the rule of law. On that 
day we were reminded that the best parts of our American character will 
forever trump any opponent.
  So as I stand before you today, I encourage all Americans to nurture 
the best parts of our common American character. What is that 
character? It was the selflessness and courage of a New York City 
firefighter running into a smoking tower and up the stairs when 
everyone else was running down. It was the composure, confidence, and 
decency of bystanders helping perfect strangers. It was the sense of 
country that caused many to answer the call of duty and enlist in the 
war on terror.
  It was the faith people showed in their fellow citizens that allowed 
for empathy, not hate to define us afterwards. On this day, let's not 
only mourn for those we lost but let's vow to them to be as good as 
they would expect us to be.
  Mr. President, 9/11 was intended to bring this country to new lows 
but instead we achieved new highs. Keep the memories of 9/11 in our 
hearts and let them guide our actions, actions that show each other and 
the world how good we are and how good we can be.
  Archibald MacLeish wrote, ``There are those who will say that the 
liberation of humanity, the freedom of man and mind, is nothing but a 
dream. They are right. It is the American dream.''
  Surely 9/11 was a nightmare horrific. As horrific and cruel as it 
was, it cannot extinguish the dream.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Tribute to Wendy Gnehm

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I have often said how blessed I am to have 
found a group of people who are strongly committed to the future of 
Wyoming, the West, and the United States to serve on my staff. If being 
a Senate staff were an Olympic event, I have no doubt I would be the 
coach of one of the Senate dream teams. I believe they would be the 
gold medal winners. I am that proud of them.
  Today I wish to express my appreciation to one of my long-time 
staffers who will be returning home to run a business in Wyoming. She 
is Wendy Gnehm, and although we are going to miss her, we are also 
proud of her decision to return home to raise her family with her 
husband Ed, because there is no better place for families and children 
than Wyoming. We wish them both the best and we are confident as she is 
that they have made the right decision.
  Although Wendy has been part of my staff for quite some time, her 
family, her husband's family, and my own family have been close for a 
lot longer than that. Wendy's mother Sharon was the one who first 
introduced me to Diana, now my wife, on a blind date in Denver when 
Sharon was in town looking for a bridal gown.
  It was not long thereafter that Diana was looking for one too, which 
means we knew Wendy's parents long before she was born. So we have 
known Wendy for all of her life. I remember when Wendy was in high 
school. She set her sights on coming to Washington to serve as a page 
in the House of Representatives. It was a difficult goal, but with her 
determination, her abilities, and her good grades she was able to make 
it happen.
  Wendy's time in Washington as a page must have given her the idea of 
coming to college here, which she then began to pursue in earnest. So 
when the time was right, I agreed to write her a letter of 
recommendation to the George Washington University, as an alum and 
Wyoming liaison for the school. I was glad to be of help, but Wendy's 
credentials spoke for themselves and soon she was headed back to 
Washington, DC, to attend one of the finest schools in the country.
  Later, when I came to Washington to serve in the Senate, I had a 
swearing-in reception for friends and extended family to mark the 
beginning of this new and great adventure in my life. And of course 
Wendy was there. It was at that reception that she met the son of my 
college roommate, Skip Gnehm, and they started to date. Their romance 
blossomed while she served as an intern for me, and it started to occur 
to them and to Diana and me how all three of our families could soon be 
permanently intertwined. What a great gift for all of us. Soon Wendy 
was looking for a wedding gown of her own and she and Ed were married.
  Not long after their marriage, Ed and Wendy moved to Kuwait to work. 
They absorbed a great deal of knowledge about the culture and the way 
of life in the Middle East. When they returned to the United States and 
made their way back to Washington, DC, I learned that Wendy was looking 
for a job. At the time I happened to be looking for someone who could 
help me handle constituent mail and services. She was quickly promoted 
to legislative assistant specializing in the foreign relations field. I 
could not think of a better individual to take on those 
responsibilities than Wendy. I was right. Wendy has been a great help 
with those difficult issues ever since. She did so well, in fact, that 
I did not hesitate to expand her responsibilities to include defense, 
veterans affairs, transportation, and the Judiciary Committee agenda 
when the opportunity presented itself. Wendy has worked on so many 
issues of importance over the years--defense, with the focus on the 
United States Air Force and missile communities, to helping start the 
Air Force Caucus, veterans health, United Nations reform, Cuba travel, 
immigration, gun rights, to name a few.
  She is now my senior legislative assistant, a title and post she has 
earned with her hard work and determination to make a difference. As my 
senior legislative assistant, she has been a captain in the legislative 
office and she has always made herself available to help guide and 
direct our efforts as a legislative team. She is also there to provide 
some good advice on the issues that are coming up and how we can best 
focus our efforts to obtain the results we are working together to 
achieve.
  Now she and her husband are packing up and moving to Sheridan, WY, 
where Wendy grew up. They will be running a business there and 
providing some good jobs to the community and some support to the local 
community economy. It is a restaurant, so they will be providing some 
good food to people in the area too. Although we are sorry to see them 
go, we could not be happier that they are returning to Wyoming. I 
always tell the people from Wyoming who come to work for me: Enjoy your 
Washington experience and learn all you can every day you are here. 
Tomorrow, when you find yourself married with children, do not hesitate 
to start looking for a way to get back home.
  As I said, and it bears repeating because it is one of life's great 
truths: There is no better place to raise your family than Wyoming, 
where you were born, where your roots are strong, and your family is 
nearby to give you the love, guidance, and support that helped to make 
you the person you are today. Of course, it is no surprise that the 
place that is calling Wendy home is one of the most beautiful on 
Earth--Wyoming.
  In the years to come, Wyoming will teach Wendy's children all about 
being individuals, trusting in your instincts, about facing the future 
with confidence and faith. It is a great lesson to be

[[Page 13695]]

learned, and there is no better place to learn it than the great 
outdoors and open spaces and magnificent mountains of Wyoming, where 
life is centered around being a part of the great splendor and creation 
of God, and with a strong sense of community.
  For team Enzi, this was a good-news, bad-news moment. The bad news is 
we are losing a very special staffer, a good friend, and a member of 
our extended family, someone who has given so much to everyone she has 
known or worked with here in my office. The good news is we are not 
only gaining a constituent who knows us and understands the work we do 
every day, Wyoming is gaining another family that will forever define 
for others what is so great about being from the West.
  Diana and I send our best wishes to Wendy, Ed, and their children, 
who must be looking forward to the opportunity to live the life that 
made Wendy what she is today.
  Wendy, we could not be more excited for you and for the great 
opportunities that lie ahead as you begin the new chapter in your life, 
the great adventure of coming home to Wyoming. We know we will miss 
seeing you every day, but when we are back home and traveling around in 
your area, we will expect to see you at our official functions and when 
we stop by your new business. May God bless you and be with you and 
your family. Good luck, Wendy.
  I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Remembering 9/11

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today marks a time in America that 
must always in the future be remembered. It cannot be forgotten, 
because it was the worst day on American soil in modern times. The 
worst day. It was the attack on the World Trade Center in New York, 
Shanksville, PA, and the Pentagon.
  These attacks put together such a horrific toll, we must constantly 
be reminded. And we are every day of the year. We are reminded how 
terrible this attack was. It was unimaginable, the pictures that we saw 
on TV. If anyone turned on the TV, on almost every station there was a 
picture of the strike at the World Trade Center, an airplane running 
into it. And the first thing that was thought--and unfortunately I was 
out of the country when this took place; I heard about it on the radio, 
and saw people in the country I was in weeping for this great America. 
We thought it was an accidental thing. We are not far from an airport, 
Teterboro Airport in New Jersey--maybe that it was an errant pilot, 
probably a single-engine airplane. Nothing could have been further from 
the truth. This was a designed attack on this building with all of the 
particulars that the terrorists had to have: How long would it take for 
the steel to melt, where is the best place to strike, what can the 
consequences of an attack such as this be? Unimaginable, as I earlier 
said.
  In my home State of New Jersey, we lost the second highest number of 
lives of any State in the country. More than 700 people from New Jersey 
perished in this terrible onslaught. September 11, 2001, changed our 
country forever. We see it and we are reminded about it every day of 
the year. If you want to enter many buildings, you have to identify 
yourself; you want to get in an airplane, you have to identify 
yourself; you want to get in these buildings, you have to identify 
yourself. This is a habit that grew out of the fear of terrorism. We 
have over 200,000 people employed to protect us against a terrorist 
attack. Although it was 11 years ago, few Americans will forget how 
that peaceful Tuesday turned into one of the most unpleasant days, most 
painful days, most heartfelt days on American soil. We still feel the 
pain and the sadness of that day. And when we think about it, the 
biggest price, of course, was paid by the families, the families who 
lost a son or a daughter or a husband or a wife or a grandparent or a 
friend or a neighbor. The loss was with excruciating pain. We lost 
nearly 3,000 American lives at the World Trade Center and in 
Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon--3,000 American lives in a single day. 
I am reminded, since I served in the Army during World War II, that 
Pearl Harbor had fewer casualties than did the attack that day; that it 
outdid the number killed immediately at D-day. It was a terrible 
tragedy that struck our country.
  Forty-one States and territories and more than 90 countries lost at 
least a member, a person from that tragedy. Imagine, over 90 countries, 
41 States and territories; and 343 firefighters and 60 police officers 
were among those who died as they answered desperate calls for help. 
These people were not present in the building, typically. They came to 
the building while the flames were there and the soot and the dirt was 
falling and the building collapsing. They went into those buildings to 
help people who were screaming and pleading for help. It has been 11 
years, but many Americans are still sick and more than 71,000 Americans 
are still having their health monitored because of exposure to the 
dust, the asbestos, and to the chemicals that filled the air.
  As we remember those we have lost, we have to let our grief serve as 
a reminder of our resilience and to rebuild our strength. While the 
scars of 9/11 may never fully heal, we take some comfort in knowing 
that in our fight back, we have, in some ways, confirmed our fight 
against terrorism. Osama bin Laden will never take another innocent 
American life. But we have to remember that although bin Laden's 
influence has been eliminated, there are lots of people who want to 
follow in his footsteps in plotting against America.
  The everyday lives of all Americans have changed forever. We now live 
in a state of constant vigilance to prevent another attack. I remember 
not too long ago, we used to have announcements that this is an orange 
color day or a green day or whatever, denoting the risk of an attack 
from a terrorist organization or an individual. Because of 9/11, over 
200,000 Americans go to work every day at the Department of Homeland 
Security to protect us at airports or at buildings or gatherings where 
we have to show an ID to gain entry. So that day made a huge difference 
in the way we function. It costs time, it costs money, and it costs 
inconvenience. Nothing, however, as I earlier said, compares to the 
loss of a loved one.
  We are determined now to remain diligent and strong, despite the face 
of terrorism that is frequently depicted these days. As Americans 
gather today in tribute to those we lost, we have to remember to keep 
alive the memories of these Americans who perished for being in the 
place they were in and not for anything they did wrong. So we have to 
resolve to continue the work of keeping our families safe, our 
communities strong, and to be reminded about that, we still see the 
direct result from that attack, with 71,000 people, including more than 
8,000 from New Jersey, who are currently being monitored for health 
conditions that resulted from the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks. That 
is 70,000 people who are having their health monitored and more than 
14,000 responders and 2,500 community residents who are currently sick 
and receiving treatment from the World Trade Center Health Program. 
Many have perished, and we passed a law to offer compensation and 
health care for those who are still suffering from the results of that 
terrible day.
  With that, let me just say I think we have to remember we must stay 
strong. Unfortunately, there cannot be any relaxation. When we see the 
Olympic games or the Super Bowl or days that mark pleasant competition 
and bonding and youth and energy, we remember those days over 11 years 
ago.
  It is hard to take much consolation, except we know one thing; that 
we cannot stop protecting our citizens, our people, wherever they are 
in the

[[Page 13696]]

world--wherever they are in the world. We have seen attacks take place 
on foreign soil from people who don't know who they are; perhaps some 
knowing they are American travelers or American diplomats. But there 
is, again, little satisfaction until one day the world turns more 
sensible and respects human life. We hope that is a situation that is 
forever reflected upon and never forgotten.
  With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Ryan Budget

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I came over earlier to speak and talk about 
a dedicated staff person of mine who is moving back to Wyoming, but I 
had to wait about 30 minutes while I listened to the Senator from Iowa 
talk about a Romney-Ryan budget. There is no such thing. Governor 
Romney hasn't put forward a budget for this group. Congressman Ryan, of 
course, was the chairman of the Budget Committee in the House, and he 
was obligated to do a budget. He did a budget--something the Senate 
hasn't done.
  I don't think we can complain about a budget when we have gone 3 
years without a budget. There is a timeline for a budget around here. 
We are supposed to have a budget finished by April 15 of each year, but 
we have gone 3 years with no budget.
  The President submitted his budget to us, and that is what we are 
supposed to work from in the Budget Committee. I am on the Budget 
Committee, and we have had a little discussion in the Budget Committee. 
We haven't gotten to do the budget debate on the floor, which is one 
with unlimited amendments, but we have gotten to vote on the 
President's budget. At least Congressman Ryan got some votes for his 
budget. The President's last two budgets have been voted on by this 
body and there hasn't even been a single Democrat who was willing to 
vote for that budget--not a single one. The President couldn't persuade 
one person from his party to go along with the plan he had for this 
country.
  You know what would happen in a corporation if the chairman of the 
board or the president presented a budget to his board of directors and 
they rejected it unanimously. He would be looking for a new job. I 
think I have heard some suggestions along that line.
  Do we want to continue with out-of-control spending? That is what a 
budget controls. That is where the caps are put on and it lays out what 
is the most we can spend. We actually ought to be doing that, as we 
used to do it, where there were multiple-year caps, and we would be 
stuck with the far-out caps we projected. It is time we had a balanced 
budget around here.
  I applauded the President when he named a deficit commission. That 
was a great thing. I was a cosponsor on a bill that came before us, and 
we didn't have enough votes to pass that bill, but the President went 
ahead and did a deficit commission and he appointed two outstanding 
people to chair that budget commission--Erskine Bowles, who was the 
Chief of Staff for President Clinton, and Alan Simpson, who was a long-
time Senator from the West, a member of the revenue committee--and they 
did some diligent work with the commission and came up with a plan. 
They actually came up with a plan for how we could save America.
  I heard the Senator from Iowa say: Some of these people who are 
talking are talking like we are broke. You know what. We are pretty 
close to broke. When the national debt is the same as the gross 
national product, we are in trouble. In the United States, every man, 
woman, and child owes a shade over $50,000. We have been seeing the 
riots in Greece and Italy. In Italy, they only owe $40,000 per person. 
In Greece, they only owe $39,000 per person. Yes, we are the most 
resilient country in the world, and that is why we have a little bit of 
breathing room. But it is not inhaling time. It is time to figure out 
what we are going to do about it.
  I did expect, after the President appointed this deficit commission 
and when they came back with a report-- and it didn't have enough to 
force us to have a vote, but it was a report that would solve the 
situation--I thought for sure at the State of the Union speech the 
President would paint the same bleak picture they painted in order to 
get the deficit report they got. But instead, he promoted another 
stimulus.
  Had he painted that same bleak picture and at the end of his speech 
said, I am not telling you tonight how to solve it, but in 2 weeks, 
when my budget is delivered to the Senate, you will see what the 
deficit commission said we ought to be doing and we will do it. I think 
that by about May of that year, we would have hassled through that 
situation, and we would have adopted most of what they had in that. It 
would not have been easy. There would have been a little bit of pain, 
but it would have had a lot of gain. I think, by this point in time, 
the President would have been a hero--instead of hearing the question: 
Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?
  We can't continue the out-of-control spending we have had. Let me 
give an example of what we are doing. We are doing it without a budget, 
but here is what we are doing. The highway bill, that is one of the 
most important bills--everybody admits--for America. We have to have 
transportation in this country, and the highway bill is one of the 
major ways we do that. It creates jobs because people go out and build 
the roads or repair the roads, and it makes a difference.
  But here is how we funded the highway bill: In the Finance Committee, 
I suggested we needed to increase the tax on gasoline. That is the tax 
that funds the highway trust fund, which is the sole source of money 
for building the highways before. But we haven't raised that since 
1993, and it ran out of money.
  The deficit commission President Obama appointed suggested we needed 
to raise the gas tax 5 cents a year for three consecutive years if we 
wanted to build highways. In the Finance Committee I said, I am going 
to put in something a little bit more modest to see if we have any 
support for it. I am going to put in something that just deals with 
inflation on the gas tax.
  I was told we wouldn't have a vote in the Finance Committee on it--
and we didn't have a vote in the Finance Committee on it. And when it 
came to the floor, we did not have a vote on that on the floor because 
we weren't going to raise any taxes. Well, let me tell you what the 
bill does: There is a tax increase in the bill. We just didn't talk 
about it. I talked about it, but not many people talked about it. There 
is a tax increase in the bill. There is a tax on any private pension 
fund in America. That goes into a trust fund, supposedly.
  I have a little problem with what we call trust funds around here, 
because I don't have trust any of them. That is going into a trust fund 
so that if a company goes out of business, the people who were promised 
a pension will get at least 60 percent of what they were promised. That 
is what that tax is for. That is why we do the tax on private pensions. 
The Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation guarantees that people will 
get a portion of what they were promised in a private pension, and so 
we raised the tax to make sure that would be there. Then, before it got 
there, we diverted it, we stole it, we stripped it, and we put it in 
the highway bill. And we didn't just take 2 years' worth. That is how 
long the bill covers highway construction. It says in the next 2 years 
all the highways that we will build and how much they will cost. But 
from the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation tax that we increased, 
we took all of that for 10 years to build 2 years' worth of highways. I 
don't know of anybody who would consider that to be good financial 
management. Highways are essential, but that is not good financial 
management. We have to stop this trend. And we particularly have to 
stop stealing from trust funds.

[[Page 13697]]

  There is one other source of trust fund in there I am particularly 
sensitive to. There is an abandoned mine land fund. This is a fund that 
was set up where coal mines in the West would get an additional tax--
which we agreed to and the companies agreed to. Half of that tax would 
stay with the State where the coal was mined, and the other half would 
go to the eastern States to reclaim abandoned mines. It is a good idea. 
Well, Wyoming mines most of the coal in the United States, so Wyoming 
gets most of that money. There is a little provision that they stuck in 
there to affect Wyoming--and I don't think ought to be the sole source 
of revenue for funding all the highways in the United States, but they 
took that abandoned mine land money and said that would go into this 
highway fund. That is a trust fund too. We heard about it at 2:00 in 
the morning the day before we voted on this bill, and it was a total 
shock to us that they were giving this to the trust fund that was 
billed as a massive coalition between the East and the West, between 
companies and between miners who relied on the companies that went out 
of business for their health care. And abandoned mine land money takes 
care of that, too. But they said, Well, for Wyoming we think you get 
too much money, so we are going to strip out the half that you were 
promised and didn't get for years and years and years while they took 
care of their own problems. That is in there too and that is in there 
for a 10-year period for 2 years' worth of highway construction.
  So when we say that America is not broke, America is not broke. But 
it isn't fixed either. It needs to be fixed, and it needs to be fixed 
legitimately, upfront, telling the people exactly what we are doing. 
There is going to have to be a lot of things that have to be done in 
order to do it.
  I have suggested one way it can be done--and I have tried to cut 
things before, and I know that if we try to cut a single program, any 
single program--and we have to cut a lot of programs--that program will 
inundate Washington with a few good examples of what that program has 
done, even though audits of it say that is not what happened. But those 
people will flood here, they will talk to their Senators, we will feel 
sorry for them, we will approve the program, and we will continue the 
program. It is almost impossible to cut a program around here. It is 
hard to cut the amount of increase that program gets, let alone make an 
actual cut to a program or--Lord help us--eliminate a program 
altogether.
  So what are we going to do? I have a 1-percent solution. That is to 
take 1 penny out of every dollar the American government spends and 
eliminate that, cut that, save that--1 penny out of every dollar. 
People across America, when I talk to them about this, say, I have 
personally had to make a bigger cut than that. I could make 1 percent; 
the government ought to be able to take 1 percent. And if the 
government made 1 percent for between 5 and 7 years, our budget would 
balance. That is a lot of discipline, but it is a little pain for a lot 
of gain. And I am pretty sure if we were able to do that, at the end of 
1 year people would say, You know, that didn't hurt that badly, and we 
ought to go for 2 and speed this thing up. Because I don't know how 
much time we have before interest rates go up, and when interest rates 
go up, they can use up all of the revenue we have from taxes to pay the 
interest on the loans we have out there. We have tremendous debt out 
there, and we had better start taking care of it. I have looked at some 
ways to do that, and I will share those at another time.
  But I hope I don't hear a lot about the Romney-Ryan budget here on 
the floor when there hasn't been a budget presented and voted on by the 
other side. You have got to have the courage to make some cuts. You 
have got to have the courage to put forward a budget that is on a 
track--a track somehow to getting us back to solvency. And it better 
happen pretty fast.
  So I think I am going to feel sorry for whomever gets elected 
President, and perhaps whomever is going to be in this body and in the 
House next year, because it is not going to be a pleasant task. We are 
going to have to buckle down and do the right thing.
  I got to meet earlier with the new Prime Minister of Italy, and I was 
very impressed with him. He was talking about what he has to do right 
now to pull them out of their deficit. Remember, we owe $50,000 per 
person. They owe $40,000 per person. They are taking the hard steps. He 
has laid out a plan, he has talked to the people involved. Over there 
they have strikes whenever they get upset with the government. He had 
to talk to some of the labor unions. He said, I talked to them and they 
went out on strike for 2 hours. Of course, usually a minimum strike is 
3 days over there, so he felt pretty good about that. But he said with 
the changes that he has to make--and it was a reflection on what we are 
looking at too--probably none of the people will be there next year. 
Those in the cabinet who were sitting next to him were a little bit 
shocked to hear that. I think if he does the plan, people will 
appreciate the way he is saving their country and they will put him 
back in again.
  But we are looking at some difficult times and we need good 
solutions. It is going to mean working across the aisle to make sure 
that gets done. Our time is short. But this is the most resilient 
country in the world, and the rest of the world is relying on America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I came to the floor to 
commemorate the events of 11 years ago on September 11. But I want to 
respond to my friend and fellow westerner Senator Enzi from Wyoming. I 
appreciate the sentiments and the tone of his remarks. I respect 
greatly his financial acumen. We know the training Senator Enzi has, 
and I appreciate his call to action hopefully as soon as possible.
  I would like to stay in Washington and continue to work on the 
Simpson-Bowles architecture. I know my colleague from Colorado, Senator 
Bennet, has spent a great deal of time as a member of the Gang of Six 
plus two crafting legislative language to put the Simpson-Bowles 
recommendations into effect.
  I did, however, want to set the record straight as I read it and as I 
understand it, which is that we have had a Budget Control Act that many 
of us voted for last year which in effect is a budget for 2012 and 
2013.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the documentation of the Budget 
Control Act printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Budget Control Act Contained Budget for 2012 and 2013

     SEC. 106. SENATE BUDGET ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) For the purpose of enforcing the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 through April 15, 2012, including section 300 of 
     that Act, and enforcing budgetary points of order in prior 
     concurrent resolutions on the budget, the allocations, 
     aggregates, and levels set in subsection (b)(1) shall apply 
     in the Senate in the same manner as for a concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012 with 
     appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 and 2013 
     through 2021.
       (2) For the purpose of enforcing the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 after April 15, 2012, including section 300 of 
     that Act, and enforcing budgetary points of order in prior 
     concurrent resolutions on the budget, the allocations, 
     aggregates, and levels set in subsection (b)(2) shall apply 
     in the Senate in the same manner as for a concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013 with 
     appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2012 and 2014 
     through 2022.
       PUBLIC LAW 112-25--AUG. 2, 2011

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. The language reads:

       . . . the allocations, aggregates, and levels set in 
     subsection (b)(1) shall apply in the Senate in the same 
     manner as for a current resolution on the budget for fiscal 
     year 2012 . . .

  That language is duplicated below in the next paragraph for 2013.
  I think I hear my friend from Wyoming suggesting that the process the 
Senate periodically uses to determine a budget is helpful and follows 
regular order, and I agree. But the Congress in

[[Page 13698]]

the last 2 years has been at loggerheads. There have been more impasses 
in the last 2 years than I remember in my 12 previous years. But we do 
have a budget in place. It is a budget that reduces Federal spending 
and is a downpayment on the hard work we have to do going forward.
  The Ryan budget was promulgated by Congressman Ryan. I was elected 
the same year as Congressman Ryan to the House. I have respect for 
Congressman Ryan and his constituents; I just happen to disagree with 
his priorities. His budget proposal sets priorities; it is a template. 
And if you really study what Congressman Ryan includes, there are 
concerns that I have that I think are reflected by not just members of 
my caucus but many Americans: The plan lacks balance, and it doesn't 
balance at least until 2040, which is not how it is advertised.
  Why? There is no contribution from revenue. There is an increase in 
defense spending. And in my opinion, it requires extraordinary and 
unsustainable cuts to government services. In fact, the Federal 
Government would be cut in half. I don't think there is anybody who 
thinks that is a realistic goal.
  President Reagan's economic adviser Bruce Bartlett was pretty tough 
on the Ryan plan. He called it a monstrosity, and pointed out that the 
Ryan plan is backed up by make-believe numbers and unreasonable 
assumptions.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the statements 
of Mr. Bartlett.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      Former Reagan Economic Advisor Bartlett on Ryan Budget Plan

       Distributionally, the Ryan plan is a monstrosity. The rich 
     would receive huge tax cuts while the social safety net would 
     be shredded to pay for them. Even as an opening bid to begin 
     budget negotiations with the Democrats, the Ryan plan cannot 
     be taken seriously. It is less of a wish list than a fairy 
     tale utterly disconnected from the real world, backed up by 
     make-believe numbers and unreasonable assumptions. Ryan's 
     plan isn't even an act of courage; it's just pandering to the 
     Tea Party. A real act of courage would have been for him to 
     admit, as all serious budget analysts know, that revenues 
     will have to rise well above 19 percent of GDP to stabilize 
     the debt.
       Former Reagan Administration Economic Advisor, Bruce 
     Bartlett, Capital Gains and Games Blog, Imbalanced Budget: 
     Ryan Gives Wealthy a Free Pass, April 11, 2011.

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. In conclusion, I want to again underline that 
I find, as always, in Senator Enzi someone who is thoughtful, 
practical, and pragmatic. And I heard in his comments a call to action 
where everything would be on the table, including providing for greater 
solvency of Social Security and Medicare, for cutting spending and 
ending duplication, but also for looking for additional revenue, which 
I think we all agree we can start to do by simplifying the Tax Code, 
reducing rates, and then taking a look at individual tax rates.
  Mr. President, I was here 11 years ago. It was a very similar day to 
today; a beautiful fall day, low humidity. For us Coloradans, low 
humidity is something we expect in all cases, with bluebird skies. But 
it turned into a terrible day with terrible events, and I thought I 
would reflect on what they mean for our country 11 years later.
  These attacks are forever etched in our collective memory. We lost 
3,000 fellow Americans. It was a diverse cohort of Americans. Every 
religion was represented, every race, and every region. It was 
something that even as I try and think about it again, I am almost 
overwhelmed.
  But we also have another memory associated with that day; and that 
was the amazing, beyond belief, selflessness and bravery of our first 
responders and the men and women of uniform as well as the resolve of 
whole communities who came together to help and comfort one another. 
Late in that day, lawmakers came together on the U.S. Capitol steps, as 
we did today, to say, We stand united.
  During this time, Americans seeking some good to come out of these 
acts of sheer evil looked to each other and to their leaders in 
Washington to contribute to a greater cause of unity. At such a dark 
time, we saw the very best of America: a Nation, a community, and a 
people willing to stand together in the face of adversity that we 
didn't initially understand or comprehend. That strength of unity 
brought us together, and over the last decade we have made great 
strides in combating the evil of terrorism.
  We owe a debt of gratitude, a deep debt of gratitude to those on the 
front lines of that battle. Intelligence officers, our men and women in 
uniform, and countless others have relentlessly pursued our enemies who 
seek to do us harm. We must honor their sacrifices.
  That brings me to this point. Every time a veteran is unemployed or 
has injuries that are not well treated or finds himself or herself in a 
place so dark that suicide seems like the only way out, we failed in 
our most solemn duty. We must provide the best possible health care, 
services, and benefits to those few Americans who are willing to risk 
anything and everything for us. We should be ashamed of anything less.
  That is why it is fitting today, on the anniversary of 9/11, that the 
Senate voted to move forward on legislation to help post-9/11 veterans 
find jobs. Congress and the administration have been focused on helping 
these vulnerable veterans find jobs. We passed legislation. The 
President has championed initiatives providing tax incentives and 
grants to businesses hiring veterans and offering veterans job training 
programs, but still the unemployment rate for veterans of the 
Afghanistan and Iraq wars remains higher than for the general 
population and much higher for veterans age 18 to 24. That simply is 
not acceptable. We can and we must do better.
  The bill we are going to consider, the Veterans Job Corps Act of 
2012, is a solid step in the right direction. We all recognize the 
obstacles that veterans face in translating their military experience 
into civilian jobs. We know that is the case. This commonsense 
legislation will attempt to smooth this transition by connecting 
veterans with good-paying jobs that fit their skill sets and provide 
our communities with opportunities to hire veterans as firefighters, 
police officers, to work in the public safety sector--to work in any 
sector. When our veterans believe in themselves, they are up to any 
charge; they are up for any mission.
  I have the great privilege--as does, I know, the Presiding Officer--
to serve on the Armed Services Committee. I also serve on the Senate 
Intelligence Committee. As a member of those committees I urge all of 
us to pass this bill as soon as possible. There is still time. We could 
perhaps offer it tonight. I could offer a unanimous consent request. We 
need to do this--and I am completely serious, Mr. President--to provide 
our heroes with a small measure of what we owe them for their 
incredible service and sacrifice.
  As I think more widely, as I consider what I have heard at home from 
Coloradans far and wide, passing this bill alone is not enough. Looking 
back at the days and months after September 11, I cannot help but 
admire our Nation's resolve and the sense of togetherness we had in 
facing a shared challenge. But I also cannot help but be well aware 
that 11 years on we are now a nation at odds. Partisanship is at an 
all-time high, congressional gridlock prevents even commonsense ideas 
from winning the day, and middle-class Americans just wonder when 
businesses will have the certainty they need to begin hiring again.
  For me, it seems a powerful argument and a powerful insight that a 
better future for our country can be and is, if we will hear it, 
grounded in our Nation's deep-seated respect for the courageous feats 
and sacrifices of those who answer the call of duty. Our military men 
and women have done their job. The public safety officers in the city 
of Aurora, back in July when we experienced such a terrible shooting, 
have done their job. Now it is, here in the Congress, time for us to do 
our job. It is not too late for us to harness the gratitude and the 
admiration that we have for those who have given everything for the 
United States and come together once again to do right by the Nation 
they have fought so hard to secure.

[[Page 13699]]

  As we remember the events of September 11 and honor those men and 
women in uniform who fought so hard to keep America safe, we must 
recognize that our actions, not just our words, in the months ahead may 
be the greatest way to show our appreciation for their sacrifice.
  Let's employ the doggedness of our military men and women, that 
doggedness that they exhibit on a daily basis in order to address the 
shared challenges of our time, to work together and to cast aside the 
partisan differences that stand in the way of our future prosperity. 
The American people deserve no less.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an amendment I 
recently filed with Senator Leahy to the Veterans Jobs Corps Act of 
2012. We filed this amendment to ensure that veterans service 
organizations are provided access to Federal surplus property as we 
intended when we introduced the FORVETS Act of 2010. This law provides 
that veterans service organizations should be categorized as eligible 
nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations that may acquire surplus personal 
property for the purposes of education or public health.
  Unfortunately, the General Services Administration has interpreted 
this law in the strictest of terms. In its published guidelines, 
veterans service organizations may acquire the surplus property for the 
purposes of education or public health but with minimal flexibility in 
what an educational or public health service may be. For example, 
acquiring a van to transport a disabled veteran to a doctor's 
appointment may not be considered an eligible use for a veterans 
organization under current guidelines.
  This amendment makes the legislative modification necessary for GSA 
to carry out the original intent of the FORVETS Act of 2010.
  The National Association of State Agencies for Surplus Property, 
NASASP, has identified the need for this legislative modification to 
ensure that veterans service organizations are able to receive surplus 
equipment to enable them to better provide the critical services they 
offer for our Nation's veterans.
  Veterans groups whose work enhances the lives of countless veterans 
every day benefit from access to these goods just as other service 
organizations do. Many veterans organizations offer career development 
and job training assistance to our Nation's veterans, yet often lack 
the computer equipment needed to best assist our veterans in the often 
difficult transition from military service to the civilian work force.
  These are just a few examples of the needs that veterans service 
organizations have. This amendment is one way to say ``thank you'' to 
those Americans who have worn the uniform and to the families that 
supported them. In these challenging fiscal times, the need for excess 
federal property to be used for job training, rehabilitation, and other 
important assistance to our veterans is greater now more than ever.
  I urge my colleagues to support the inclusion of this amendment to 
the Veterans Jobs Corps Act of 2012.
  Mr. President, since 2004, active duty military suicides have more 
than doubled, and the problem only continues to get worse. The Army 
recently reported that in July of this year 38 of its soldiers took 
their lives, a rate of more than one per day. This is a tragedy of the 
highest magnitude and it is something that the Congress and the 
American people must not ignore. Action is needed now, and we must take 
every practical step that we can to help the military reverse this 
disturbing trend. Not only are we losing dozens of America's finest 
each month, squandering precious talent that our Nation needs, but 
today's soldiers are tomorrow's veterans, and the crisis of mental and 
behavioral health that the epidemic of suicides represents foreshadows 
a troubling prospect for the future.
  In Afghanistan, we have invested billions of dollars and devoted some 
of the military's best minds to protect our soldiers and give them the 
tools they need to reduce the threat of an improvised explosive devise 
attack. Unfortunately, we have only devoted a fraction of the same 
resources or creativity to suicide prevention, even though through 
early June 2012 military suicides had outpaced the number of combat 
deaths in Afghanistan. It is estimated that more than 250 soldiers, 
sailors, airmen, and marines have taken their own lives this year.
  There is substantial evidence that prescription drug abuse is a major 
factor in military suicides. In its January 2012 report Army 2020: 
Generating Health and Discipline in the Force, the Army found that 29 
percent of suicides had a known history of psychotropic medication use 
including anti-depressants, anti-anxiety medicine, anti-psychotics, and 
other controlled substances such as opioids.
  Active-duty drug use was a factor in more than a third of suicides 
where drug use could be determined and a factor in two-thirds of 
suicide attempts. The Army's report recommends the establishment of a 
military drug take-back program to help combat prescription drug abuse 
in the ranks. Given that more than 49,000 soldiers were issued three or 
more psychotropic or controlled substance prescriptions last year and 
an estimated 3,500 soldiers illicitly used prescription drugs, it's 
time we act on this recommendation.
  At present, only the Drug Enforcement Administration has the inherent 
authority to conduct a drug take-back program. The Secure and 
Responsible Drug Disposal Act of 2010, however, provided the Attorney 
General the flexibility necessary to delegate similar authority to 
other agencies to conduct a drug take-back program. Thus far, however, 
the Attorney General has declined to act, and neither the Attorney 
General nor the DEA has provided mechanisms or authority to the 
military to establish its own drug take-back program.
  Senator Lieberman and I, building on work done by Senator Murray, 
wrote the Attorney General in July of this year to request his support 
for efforts to reduce military suicides by allowing military treatment 
facilities to conduct controlled substance take-back and destruction 
programs.
  Senator Lieberman and I understand that accountability of drugs must 
be strictly maintained and that these drugs must be prevented from 
being misused, abused, or from entering the black market. We are 
confident, however, that an accountable drug take-back program could be 
established at military treatment facilities with sufficient safeguards 
put in place to prevent diversion, misuse, theft, or loss of returned 
drugs. Military treatment facilities are unique, and the military has 
established successful accountability programs for handling nuclear 
weapons, conventional weapons, and classified materials. We have no 
reason to doubt that an appropriate degree of accountability could be 
established in a drug take-back program.
  Excluding the military from conducting drug take-back programs has a 
detrimental effect on the military's ability to reduce controlled 
substance abuse in the Force, decrease non-medical use of prescription 
drugs, prevent diversion of controlled substances, and limit the 
possibility for accidental overdose and death for our servicemembers or 
their family members. Providing this authority will give the military 
one more tool in its efforts to reduce suicides.
  The loss of even one servicemember to a potentially preventable 
suicide involving controlled substance abuse or misuse is unacceptable. 
For that reason, Senator Lieberman and I filed this amendment to the 
Veterans Jobs Corps Act. I urge my colleagues to support inclusion of 
this amendment in this legislation.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Remembering 9/11

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, today we remember September 11, 
2001, 11 years ago, a Tuesday like today was, a beautiful day like 
today was, but a

[[Page 13700]]

day of horror incited by a hateful ideology. We, of course, cannot 
afford to forget what happened, but let's remember what can happen when 
Americans come together.
  On this national day of remembrance we honor those who lost their 
lives 11 years ago, the daughters and sons, mothers and fathers, 
sisters and brothers from various walks of life and avenues of faith. 
We honor the families of the victims. We honor the survivors. We honor 
the courageous civil servants and first responders, most of them union 
members, who lost their lives and suffered illnesses because of their 
selflessness. We salute the servicemembers and their families who 
sacrificed so much since these tragic events.
  More than a decade later we all remember where we were on that clear 
Tuesday morning. I remember feeling the fear and uncertainty when 
gathering my staff at a location near the Capitol. Regardless of where 
we were on that fateful day, whether speaking English with a Brooklyn 
accent or as a first generation American learning English as a second 
language or those of you from the Midwest who perhaps speak with a bit 
of a Midwestern accent--although Midwesterners do not have an accent--
we all came together. Regardless of where we worked--in a manufacturing 
plant in Cleveland or a farm near Lima--we came together. This is this 
spirit or solidarity we reaffirm today.
  Today we must come together again and focus on moving forward as one 
nation in spite of our differences.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to dispense 
with the quorum call.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Second Anniversary of the Chevrolet Cruze

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. This weekend, I believe it was Saturday, I was in 
Lordstown, OH, celebrating the 2-year anniversary of the first Chevy 
Cruze that came off the Lordstown GM Chevy plant line. I was there the 
day the first Cruze came out. The first three cars--painted red, white, 
and blue--represented the determination of workers and that company and 
the Nation to succeed to bounce back, despite national naysayers who 
were willing to stand idly by while our economy stalled.
  We read it in newspapers, saw it on television, heard it on the radio 
how some elected officials not only wanted to turn their back on an 
industry that has provided middle-class wages, college educations, 
homes, and cars to millions of Americans, but a number of elected 
officials wanted to bet against the American automotive industry.
  During the height of the economic crisis, when American manufacturing 
was sputtering--and the Presiding Officer knows the statistics because 
he paid attention in his State of Alaska, which is not so much a 
manufacturing State but a State that contributes a lot to 
manufacturing. The Presiding Officer knows what has happened in this 
country. From 2000 to 2010, we lost 5 million manufacturing jobs. That 
was one-third of all the manufacturing jobs in this country. Six 
thousand plants closed in the United States in that decade. Since 
2010--and more on that in a moment--because of the auto rescue and 
because we have a Federal Government that is willing to enforce trade 
laws, we have seen a growth of 500,000 manufacturing jobs, the first 
time we have seen month-to-month manufacturing job growth for almost 
every month for 2-plus years. It is the first time since 1999 this 
country has actually seen any manufacturing job growth.
  Some said: Let the industry go bankrupt. A Presidential candidate 
said--I believe his words to Detroit were along the lines of drop dead; 
that wasn't something we wanted to do, to do anything to help that 
industry. They were willing to let the auto industry go bankrupt and 
then see what happened.
  Some of these naysayers thought it was OK to bail out Wall Street. 
They thought it was OK to pad the salaries of reckless bankers who 
drove our economy off the cliff. It wasn't the nonunion autoworker in 
Marysville who built the Honda, it wasn't the Chrysler autoworker in 
Toledo who built the Wrangler or the Liberty, it wasn't the Chevy 
autoworker in Lordstown who built the Cruze, it wasn't the autoworker 
in Defiance who built the engine or the glass worker in Crestline who 
made the glass for the Chevy Cruze or the aluminum worker in Cleveland 
or the steelworker in Middletown who caused the collapse of the economy 
and the problems with the banks. In many ways, they were blamed by the 
people who bet against America, who were willing to say it is OK to pad 
the salary of reckless bankers, even though they are the ones who drove 
the economy off the cliff.
  They railed against rescuing autoworkers in places such as 
Holmesville, Waverly, Middletown, and Youngstown. The easy road--and it 
wasn't the easy road by a long shot--isn't always the right path, not 
when this many jobs are at stake, paying these kind of wages, 
strengthening this middle-class.
  The Chevy Cruze represents what was at stake. Three days ago, when I 
was in Lordstown, we marked the day of the 2-year anniversary, how 
resilient we can be when we make decisions not based on politics but 
what is best for the country. Plain and simple, the auto rescue was the 
right choice.
  Last year, the Cruze was elected the Car of the Year by the North 
American Dealer Association. Now it is the best-selling compact car in 
America. My daughter drives one. My wife traded in her 6-year-old 
Pontiac Vibe and bought a Chevy Cruze. Just a few short years ago, 
1,000 workers in Lordstown were laid off. Today, nearly 5,000 workers 
build one of the fastest selling small cars in the country.
  For people such as Glenn Johnson, who is the local President in the 
Lordstown assembly plant, the politically unpopular decision to save 
the auto industry was about saving the livelihood for hard-working 
families in Ohio and in the Midwest. Two years later, we are moving 
forward. GM profits are up. GM has been profitable for 10 consecutive 
quarters. None of the naysayers thought it could possibly happen. None 
of the naysayers were willing to invest in GM and to find private 
capital. It only happened because taxpayers stepped forward because the 
government was willing to understand and recognize that this mattered 
for our country.
  GM has announced plans to make a $200 million additional investment 
in Lordstown, where they have added a third shift to produce the Chevy 
Cruze. Chrysler has invested tens of millions of dollars in Toledo. 
Honda has invested tens of millions of dollars in a new model in 
Marysville. Ford has invested tens of millions of dollars in Cleveland. 
All three American auto companies and the major U.S. auto transplant 
Honda have all made major investments in Ohio since the auto rescue. 
The Cruze epitomizes how essential the auto industry is in Ohio.
  The engine for the Cruze is made in Defiance, the transmission for 
the Cruze is made in Toledo, the brackets are made in Brunswick, the 
glass for the Wrangler is made in Crestline, the sound system for the 
Cruze is made in Springboro, the underneath steel for the Cruze comes 
from Middletown, the exposed steel comes from Cleveland, the seat frame 
comes from Lorain, the seats are made in Warren, and the aluminum for 
the Chevy Cruze Eco comes from Cleveland. The car is assembled by 5,000 
workers in Lordstown, OH.
  This success story goes far beyond one State. In my State alone, 
hundreds of thousands of jobs are associated with the auto industry. 
There are 120,000 Ohioans who are directly employed by automakers, 
dealers, and supply chain parts manufacturers. We know even with that 
success and even with the success of enforcing trade laws, which have 
turned into--as a result of enforcing trade rules, we have a new steel 
mill in Youngstown. More tires are made in Findlay and more aluminum is 
made in Heath and Sidney, OH. More steel is made in Lorain and 
Cleveland.
  Because we have enforced trade rules, that doesn't mean we don't need 
to do more. The economy is still not what it

[[Page 13701]]

should be. Our unemployment rate from 2 years ago went from over 10.5 
percent to under 7.5 percent, but it is clearly still not enough 
because far too many workers in Ohio, Alaska and America and all over 
are underemployed or unemployed.
  We are moving in the right direction. Since January of 2010, after a 
full decade of manufacturing job loss from 2000 to 2010, where 5 
million manufacturing jobs were lost, we have gained 500,000 
manufacturing jobs in those 2 years.
  Supporting America means valuing workers. It is patriotic to support 
America's middle class. When it comes to protecting American workers 
and supporting American manufacturers and boasting America's middle 
class, we still have much to do. We have made major progress in the 
last years. We have much to do. We have no choice but to move forward.

                          ____________________