Adjunct Faculty Loan Fairness Act of 2014

Mr. President, today I am introducing the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, USCIRF, Reform and Reauthorization Act of 2014.

This legislation would reauthorize the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, also known as USCIRF, while making important reforms to the Commission to encourage bipartisanship, enhance coordination with the State Department, and improve Congressional oversight.

I strongly support USCIRF's mission of promoting and protecting international religious freedom. My legislation will help USCIRF to more effectively pursue this mission.

In 2011, I authored a number of reforms in the previous USCIRF reauthorization legislation, including term limits for Commissioners; a prohibition on employee discrimination; a requirement that Commissioners follow federal travel regulations; and maintaining nine Commissioners, rather than five Commissioners, as called for by the House-passed reauthorization. I have heard from USCIRF that these reforms have strengthened the Commission, and the legislation I am introducing today will build on these reforms.

The USCIRF Reform and Reauthorization Act is supported by a broad swath of religious and civic leaders and faith organizations, including, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good; the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America; United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society; HIAS; Muslim Public Affairs Council; Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, Archbishop Emeritus of Washington and former USCIRF Commissioner; Dr. William J. Shaw, Immediate Past President of the National Baptist Convention, USA. Inc. and former USCIRF Commissioner; former Congressman and USCIRF Commissioner Sam Gejdenson; Sister Simone Campbell, Executive Director of NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; Rateb Rabie, President of the Holy Land Christian Ecumenical Foundation; Dr. Azizah Al-Hibri, former USCIRF Commissioner and Founder and Chair of KARAMAH: Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights; Rev. Drew Christiansen, S.J., Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Global Development at Georgetown University; Dr. Alfred Rotondaro, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress; Dr. Laila Al-Marayati, former USCIRF Commissioner; and Benjamin Palumbo, Board of Trustees, Catholics United.

There is bipartisan agreement about the need for our government to promote and protect international religious freedom. USCIRF is, by design, a bipartisan organization, with Commissioners appointed by the President and Congressional leaders, and USCIRF can most effectively promote religious freedom by doing so on a bipartisan basis. This issue is too important to be stymied by the excessive partisanship which too often leads to political gridlock in Washington.

It is to be expected that the members of a bipartisan Commission will not always reach consensus. However, I am troubled that some Commissioners have on occasion engaged in partisan rhetoric that is not conducive to USCIRF's bipartisan mission and does not represent USCIRF's official views.

For example, one Commissioner recently appeared on Fox News' Hannity program, and, after identifying himself as a member of USCIRF, claimed that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had failed to take steps to combat Boko Haram in Nigeria and accused the Obama Administration of having ``no strategy'' for combating terrorism. Mother Commissioner testified in Congress on behalf of USCIRF and said that the Obama Administration ``sends a message to other countries that we don't care'' about religious freedom.

The USCIRF Reform and Reauthorization Act will facilitate bipartisanship by taking a number of steps. First, the legislation will codify USCIRF's existing procedures for the election of a Chair and Vice Chair so that these positions rotate annually between Commissioners appointed by elected officials of each political party. This will help ensure continued bipartisan leadership at the Commission.

Second, this bill will establish a dedicated bipartisan staff as a complement to nonpartisan professional staff. The legislation permits Commissioners appointed by elected officials of each political party to appoint designated Staff Directors and three designated staff members. This will help foster a bipartisan environment at USCIRF.

Third, the bill will codify procedures for publishing the views of the Commission. The bill encourages Commissioners to reach consensus on statements on behalf of the Commission. When consensus is not possible, the bill requires a statement to be approved by at least six of the nine Commissioners. This supermajority requirement is current USCIRF policy for the approval of statements that are circulated electronically. Codifying this policy will ensure that at least one Commissioner of each political party supports every Commission statement.

USCIRF has noted that it is the only organization of its kind in the world. The Government Accountability Office, GAO, recently issued a report on USCIRF which highlights some of the challenges inherent to USCIRF's unique mission.

The GAO notes that there are two governmental entities charged with promoting international religious freedom: USCIRF and the State Department's Office of International Religious Freedom. The GAO found that these overlapping missions and ``the lack of a definition regarding how State and the Commission are to interact has sometimes created foreign policy tensions that State has had to mitigate.'' The GAO notes that State Department officials highlighted several instances ``when the Commission's approach with foreign government officials created bilateral tensions.''

The GAO's concerns about the overlap between State and USCIRF are serious enough that it included USCIRF in its annual duplication report. As my colleagues know, Senator Coburn authored legislation requiring GAO to issue this report to identify unnecessary duplication in the federal government.

I am concerned that the lack of coordination between the State Department and USCIRF may undermine our government's efforts to promote international religious freedom by sending mixed messages to foreign governments and human-rights activists who are fighting to defend religious freedom in their countries.

Consider another example. The State Department and USCIRF both produce an annual report on international religious freedom. Under current law, USCIRF is required to publish its report ``[n]ot later than May 1 of each year,'' but the State Department's report is often not completed before May 1. This forces USCIRF to issue its report prior to publication of the State Department report, which leads to unnecessary duplication of efforts, saps USCIRF's limited staff resources, and prevents USCIRF from opining on the State Department report.

The USCIRF Reform and Reauthorization Act will enhance cooperation between USCIRF and the State Department with two measures. First, it clarifies that the Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, as an ex officio member of USCIRF, is permitted to attend all Commission meetings. GAO's duplication report specifically highlights the failure to define the role of the Ambassador at Large as an ex officio member of USCIRF.

Second, this legislation requires USCIRF to publish its annual report after reviewing the State Department's annual report on International Religious Freedom. This division of labor takes advantage of the State Department's worldwide presence and much larger staff to draft a comprehensive report. It also takes advantage of

USCIRF's unique role to provide an independent and bipartisan commentary on the State Department report.

USCIRF is a part of the legislative branch and it is ultimately the responsibility of Congress to oversee USCIRF's work and ensure that it is effectively pursuing its mission. The need for greater Congressional oversight of USCIRF has been highlighted by concerns about USCIRF's practices, including, for example, the work environment at USCIRF for religious minorities, particularly prior to the 2011 reauthorization.

In the past, human rights advocates made allegations about financial improprieties at USCIRF, particularly that USCIRF Commissioners had made lavish travel arrangements. As a result, in 2011 I authored a provision clarifying that USCIRF Commissioners are subject to Federal travel regulations.

I was troubled to learn about more allegations of financial irregularities at USCIRF only a few weeks after the last reauthorization. In early 2012, USCIRF staff notified my office that USCIRF's office manager had been involved in embezzlement and fraud for several years. The office manager subsequently pled guilty and was sentenced to 20 months in prison for embezzling $217,000 from 2007- 2011. This is a significant amount of taxpayer money in any circumstance, but particularly for a small organization like USCIRF.

I am also concerned about unresolved claims that USCIRF, an organization charged with protecting religious freedom, discriminated against a former employee on the basis of her religion.

In 2011, I included language in the last USCIRF reauthorization providing anti-discrimination protections to USCIRF employees and allowing pending civil rights claims to proceed. The impetus for this provision was a lawsuit filed by a former USCIRF employee, who claimed that her permanent employment offer was rescinded after the Commissioners learned of her prior job with a Muslim civil rights organization. USCIRF did not deny the discrimination claim. Instead, they argued that USCIRF employees do not have federal civil rights protections.

Unfortunately, the lawsuit is still pending. I understand that USCIRF's lawyers have refused to enter into settlement negotiations with the Commission's former employee and instead are aggressively litigating the case.

As Christianity Today said, ``the trial will be one of the most ironic in American history, with the congressional commission charged with monitoring religious freedom around the world defending its own employment practices in court.''

In light of these concerns, the USCIRF Reform and Reauthorization Act would improve Congressional oversight by reauthorizing the Commission for two years. A 2-year reauthorization period will allow the Commission to continue to pursue its important mission while Congress closely monitors USCIRF's activities to assure the reforms in this legislation are fully implemented.

I strongly support the mission of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom to protect and promote international religious freedom. I believe the reforms in my legislation will help USCIRF more effectively pursue this mission.

I urge my colleagues to support the USCIRF Reform and Reauthorization Act so that USCIRF can quickly be reauthorized with these important reforms.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduced the Adjunct Faculty Loan Fairness Act, a bill that would make adjunct professors eligible to participate in the Public Service Student Loan Forgiveness Program.

Contingent faculty members are like full-time instructors. They have advanced degrees. They teach classes and spend many hours outside the classroom preparing for class. They hold office hours, grade papers and give feedback to students. They provide advice and write letters of recommendation. Students rely on them. Since most adjuncts have advanced degrees and, as almost 75 percent of graduate degree recipients have an average of $61,000 in student loans, they are also among the 40 million Americans with student debt.

The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program is meant to encourage graduates to go into public service by offering student loan forgiveness for eligible federal loans after ten years of full-time work in government or the non-profit sector. Public service fields like nursing, military service, and public health qualify. And many education jobs qualify, including full-time work at public universities and part-time work at community colleges in high-needs subject areas or areas of shortage. But other faculty members who work part-time are not eligible for loan forgiveness because the law requires an annual average of 30 hours per week to qualify for the program. For adjunct faculty working at several schools on a contingent basis, this requirement can be difficult or impossible to meet, even when they are putting in more than 30 hours of work each week.

The number of faculty hours given for each class is calculated differently at different schools. Some give one hour per hour in the classroom while others actually take into consideration the time required outside the classroom. So, even as these faculty members are working hard and as their options for tenured, full-time positions become slimmer, more of them are overworked and undervalued for their work in public service.

The Adjunct Faculty Loan Fairness Act of 2014 would solve this by amending the Higher Education Act to expand the definition of a ``public service job'' to include a part-time faculty member who teaches at least one course at an eligible institution of higher education. They would still have to meet all the other requirements to qualify for the program, including making 120 on-time payments while employed at a qualifying institution, and they could not be employed full-time elsewhere at the same time.

This bill would benefit someone like David Weiss, an adjunct professor from St. Paul, Minnesota, who graduated with $48,000 in student debt and, after 12 years of on-time payments, has $35,000 left. Like most adjuncts, David has dealt with uncertain job security. In good years, he is able to teach 5 to 7 courses a year, but recently he has only been offered two to three courses. He supplements his income from teaching with other part-time work. This bill would ensure that David and many thousands like him, could obtain credit towards PSLF for payments made while teaching whether or not he was teaching one course or 7.

Unfortunately, for all their contributions to the college programs and the students they work with, adjunct faculty don't have the same employment benefits or job security as their colleagues. The number of classes they teach every semester varies. To make ends meet, these professors often end up teaching classes at more than one school in the same semester, getting paid about $3,000 per class and making an average annual income that hovers around minimum wage. This also means that, in some parts of the country, they spend as much time commuting as they do teaching.

Nationally, \2/3\ of all higher education faculty work on a contingent basis, with low pay and little or no benefits or job security. In the past, these were a minority of professors who were hired to teach an occasional class because they could bring experience to the classroom in a specific field or industry. Over time, as university budgets have tightened and it has gotten more expensive to hire full-time, tenure track professors, higher education institutions have increasingly hired adjuncts.

From 1991 to 2011, the number of part-time faculty in the U.S. increased two and a half times from 291,000 to over 760,000. At the same time, the percentage of professors holding tenure-track positions has been steadily decreasing--from 45 percent of all instructors in 1975 to only 24 percent in 2011. The number of full-time instructors, tenured and non-tenured, now makes up only about 50 percent of professors on U.S. campuses. The other 50 percent of the 1.5 million faculty employees at public and non-profit colleges and universities in the U.S. work on a part-time, contingent basis.

Illinois colleges rely heavily on adjuncts. In 2012, 53 percent of all faculty at public and not-for-profit colleges and universities in the State, more than 30,400 faculty employees, worked on a part-time basis. This is a 52.6 percent increase in part-time faculty in Illinois compared to a 13 percent increase in full-time faculty since 2002.

Not surprisingly, in Illinois, 69 percent of all part-time faculty work in Chicago, where the cost of living is 16 percent higher than the U.S. average. Based on an average payment of $3,000 per class an adjunct professor must teach between seventeen and thirty classes a year to pay for rent and utilities in Chicago.

They would have to teach up to 7 classes to afford groceries for a family of four and two to four classes per year just to cover student loan payments. Because they are part-time, they are not eligible for vacation time, paid sick days, or group health-care. So they would have to teach an additional two to three classes to afford family coverage from the lowest priced health insurance offered on Get Covered Illinois, the official health marketplace.

Even though these professors are working in a relatively low-paying field, teaching our students, their part-time status also means they aren't eligible for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program.

This bill does not completely fix this growing reliance on part-time professors who are underpaid and undervalued. But it would ensure that members of the contingent faculty workforce are no longer excluded from the loan forgiveness program for public servants. I hope my colleagues will join me in the effort to provide this benefit to faculty members who provide our students with a quality education.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduced the Adjunct Faculty Loan Fairness Act, a bill that would make adjunct professors eligible to participate in the Public Service Student Loan Forgiveness Program.

Contingent faculty members are like full-time instructors. They have advanced degrees. They teach classes and spend many hours outside the classroom preparing for class. They hold office hours, grade papers and give feedback to students. They provide advice and write letters of recommendation. Students rely on them. Since most adjuncts have advanced degrees and, as almost 75 percent of graduate degree recipients have an average of $61,000 in student loans, they are also among the 40 million Americans with student debt.

The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program is meant to encourage graduates to go into public service by offering student loan forgiveness for eligible federal loans after ten years of full-time work in government or the non-profit sector. Public service fields like nursing, military service, and public health qualify. And many education jobs qualify, including full-time work at public universities and part-time work at community colleges in high-needs subject areas or areas of shortage. But other faculty members who work part-time are not eligible for loan forgiveness because the law requires an annual average of 30 hours per week to qualify for the program. For adjunct faculty working at several schools on a contingent basis, this requirement can be difficult or impossible to meet, even when they are putting in more than 30 hours of work each week.

The number of faculty hours given for each class is calculated differently at different schools. Some give one hour per hour in the classroom while others actually take into consideration the time required outside the classroom. So, even as these faculty members are working hard and as their options for tenured, full-time positions become slimmer, more of them are overworked and undervalued for their work in public service.

The Adjunct Faculty Loan Fairness Act of 2014 would solve this by amending the Higher Education Act to expand the definition of a ``public service job'' to include a part-time faculty member who teaches at least one course at an eligible institution of higher education. They would still have to meet all the other requirements to qualify for the program, including making 120 on-time payments while employed at a qualifying institution, and they could not be employed full-time elsewhere at the same time.

This bill would benefit someone like David Weiss, an adjunct professor from St. Paul, Minnesota, who graduated with $48,000 in student debt and, after 12 years of on-time payments, has $35,000 left. Like most adjuncts, David has dealt with uncertain job security. In good years, he is able to teach 5 to 7 courses a year, but recently he has only been offered two to three courses. He supplements his income from teaching with other part-time work. This bill would ensure that David and many thousands like him, could obtain credit towards PSLF for payments made while teaching whether or not he was teaching one course or 7.

Unfortunately, for all their contributions to the college programs and the students they work with, adjunct faculty don't have the same employment benefits or job security as their colleagues. The number of classes they teach every semester varies. To make ends meet, these professors often end up teaching classes at more than one school in the same semester, getting paid about $3,000 per class and making an average annual income that hovers around minimum wage. This also means that, in some parts of the country, they spend as much time commuting as they do teaching.

Nationally, \2/3\ of all higher education faculty work on a contingent basis, with low pay and little or no benefits or job security. In the past, these were a minority of professors who were hired to teach an occasional class because they could bring experience to the classroom in a specific field or industry. Over time, as university budgets have tightened and it has gotten more expensive to hire full-time, tenure track professors, higher education institutions have increasingly hired adjuncts.

From 1991 to 2011, the number of part-time faculty in the U.S. increased two and a half times from 291,000 to over 760,000. At the same time, the percentage of professors holding tenure-track positions has been steadily decreasing--from 45 percent of all instructors in 1975 to only 24 percent in 2011. The number of full-time instructors, tenured and non-tenured, now makes up only about 50 percent of professors on U.S. campuses. The other 50 percent of the 1.5 million faculty employees at public and non-profit colleges and universities in the U.S. work on a part-time, contingent basis.

Illinois colleges rely heavily on adjuncts. In 2012, 53 percent of all faculty at public and not-for-profit colleges and universities in the State, more than 30,400 faculty employees, worked on a part-time basis. This is a 52.6 percent increase in part-time faculty in Illinois compared to a 13 percent increase in full-time faculty since 2002.

Not surprisingly, in Illinois, 69 percent of all part-time faculty work in Chicago, where the cost of living is 16 percent higher than the U.S. average. Based on an average payment of $3,000 per class an adjunct professor must teach between seventeen and thirty classes a year to pay for rent and utilities in Chicago.

They would have to teach up to 7 classes to afford groceries for a family of four and two to four classes per year just to cover student loan payments. Because they are part-time, they are not eligible for vacation time, paid sick days, or group health-care. So they would have to teach an additional two to three classes to afford family coverage from the lowest priced health insurance offered on Get Covered Illinois, the official health marketplace.

Even though these professors are working in a relatively low-paying field, teaching our students, their part-time status also means they aren't eligible for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program.

This bill does not completely fix this growing reliance on part-time professors who are underpaid and undervalued. But it would ensure that members of the contingent faculty workforce are no longer excluded from the loan forgiveness program for public servants. I hope my colleagues will join me in the effort to provide this benefit to faculty members who provide our students with a quality education.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am joining with my colleagues to introduce legislation to empower women entrepreneurs and to help address the persistent challenges women face when trying to start and grow a business.

It was just 26 years ago that Congress enacted landmark legislation, the Women's Business Ownership Act of 1988 that eliminated requirements that women obtain the signature of their husband or other man to secure a business loan.

Between 1997 and 2013, the number of women-owned businesses in the United States grew by 59 percent, but significant barriers for women still exist and there is still much more work to do.

Last week, the Small Business Committee released a report entitled ``21st Century Barriers to Women's Entrepreneurship'' that assesses the current challenges faced by women-owned businesses. The report also makes policy recommendations to increase economic opportunity for women and help to put them on a level playing field with other business owners.

Our committee report makes four critical findings and includes policy recommendations to help remedy the business climate for women entrepreneurs.

First, women business owners face challenges in getting access to capital. The report highlights a study by the Urban Institute finding that only 4 percent of the total value of all conventional small business loans goes to women entrepreneurs. That means only $1 of every $23 is being loaned to a women-owned business. The report also notes that women are forced to rely on personal savings, loans from family or friends, or high interest credit because they cannot get traditional small business lending from banks.

Second, the report finds that women business owners still face challenges in getting access to loans of the right size. Women-owned businesses have been very successful with the SBA's Microloan program, under which they can obtain loans of up to $50,000 through intermediaries that also provide assistance in the development of business plans. However, this program has not been updated since 1991.

The report highlights the importance of reauthorizing the Intermediary Lending Program that expired in 2013 and provided capital for women business owners who were ready to take out loans that exceeded the $50,000 provided by the SBA's Microloan Program, but were not yet able to take advantage of the SBA's 7(a) lending program.

Third, the report finds that women entrepreneurs face challenges obtaining relevant business training and counseling. Women's Business Centers provide specialized counseling and training designed to address the unique challenges women face in starting a small business. The report shows that the Women's Business Center program has not been re- authorized since the 1990s and is in need of a 21st century modernization.

Last, the committee report finds that women business owners face challenges getting access to Federal contracts. Despite the growing number of businesses owned by women, the Federal Government has never met its goal of awarding 5 percent of its contracts to women-owned small businesses. Our report notes that if the government met this goal, women-owned small businesses would have access to additional market opportunity worth up to $4 billion a year.

That is why we are introducing the Women's Small Business Ownership Act. This legislation follows the policy recommendations made in the committee report and helps to address the glass ceiling many women entrepreneurs still encounter in the 21st century. While women-owned businesses as a whole continue to grow and succeed, to do so many women must overcome barriers men do not face.

The Women's Small Business Ownership Act increases the flow of capital to women business owners by modernizing the SBA's Microloan program and reauthorizing the Intermediary Lending Program. Women have been particularly successful in using microloans, which are loans of under $50,000, and receive about half of all SBA Microloans.

The Microloan program would be modernized by increasing the total amount lenders can loan, as well as allowing lenders to provide flexible terms and improved technical assistance to better suit the needs of borrowers.

The Intermediary Lending Program is also an important program, which this legislation reauthorizes to address a gap in lending options for small businesses, including women-owned small businesses that are unable to obtain financing from traditional lenders. The Intermediary Lending Program offers low-interest loans of between $50,000 and $200,000 and closes the gap that can exist for small businesses that have outgrown the SBA's Microloan program, but are not yet able to take advantage of SBA's other lending guarantee programs.

This legislation removes barriers to the federal contracting marketplace by allowing sole source contracts to be awarded to women- owned small businesses. Every other small business in a unique socioeconomic category, including HUB Zone firms, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, and small disadvantaged businesses, can receive a non-competitive or sole source contract, but women's small businesses cannot. Women-owned companies deserve parity with other programs and a fair shot to grow their businesses.

The Women's Small Business Ownership Act ensures that the SBA's Women's Business Centers are adequately and effectively meeting the needs of women entrepreneurs in the 21st century. It provides the resources for Women's Business Centers to provide the technical support and counseling tailored to the unique challenges for women-owned businesses.

Women make up 51 percent of the population and have tremendous potential as business owners and job-creators. We need to empower women to break through the glass ceiling so it will be easier for even more women to succeed in the 21st century, grow the U.S. economy and create more U.S. jobs.

When women have equal opportunity to access capital, obtain the right business counseling, and compete for federal contracts, the economy grows and the country moves forward.

Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, earlier today I, along with Senator Dick Durbin and Senator Jack Reed, introduced the No Federal Contracts for Corporate Deserters Act. Our bill will put a stop to companies that renounce their U.S. citizenship but come back to try to seek taxpayer funded government contracts. There is an existing law on the books that is supposed to ban Federal contracts with inverted corporations, but just like with the tax code, after about a decade of lawyers looking for loopholes in the law, a number of corporations have found them. This bill would bring that ban up-to-date.

Over the last few months, there has been a growing rush of U.S. corporations seeking to swear off their U.S. citizenship and move their mailboxes, for tax purposes, to a low-tax jurisdiction. I don't think that is right, and it is time we put a stop to it, which we can do by passing the Stop Corporate Inversions Act I introduced 2 months ago with 22 cosponsors.

Most Americans agree with us that taxpayer dollars shouldn't be used for contracts with companies that move their addresses abroad to dodge U.S. laws. And because of that, Congress has passed a series of restrictions on contracting with inverted corporations over the last decade. We passed one in 2002, and another in 2006 and 2007. Since fiscal year 2008, a government-wide provision has been included in every annual appropriations bill banning contracts with inverted corporations.

Our bill would strengthen that ban by closing a number of loopholes in the current law. Those loopholes have allowed some inverted corporations to continue collecting revenue from American taxpayers, while at the same time, shifting their tax burden onto those same American taxpayers. Our bill also makes the existing ban, which has been included in annual appropriations bills, permanent.

Some may say that the real reason for inversions is that our tax rate is too high. It is true the top corporate rate is 35 percent. But the effective tax rate--what corporations really pay--is about 12 percent. When companies can go to places like Ireland or the Caribbean and negotiate sweetheart deals to pay little or no taxes, there will always be tax incentives for companies to abandon their country instead of paying their tax bill, no matter what our tax rate is.

Some may say that we should wait for tax reform to address this issue. There are two reasons why we shouldn't. First, if it happens at all, tax reform is months or years away; these inversions are happening now. Second, this is a bill about contracting. This bill doesn't amend the tax code. I expect it will be referred to the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, not to the Finance Committee. So even Senators who believe that fixing the tax inversions problem should wait until comprehensive tax reform should be able to support this bill.

In the past, in similar circumstances, Congress has chosen to act-- overwhelmingly, and in a bipartisan fashion. This should not be a partisan

issue. This is about fairness. It is simply unfair to businesses who don't invert to have to compete with companies that do invert. This is about putting American families who work hard and pay their share. We shouldn't sacrifice the interests of those families. We shouldn't ask them to send their hard-earned tax dollars to contractors who skip out on their tax obligations. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this bill forward.

Mr. President, as the founder and co-chair of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, I have learned a great deal about this devastating disease affecting nearly 29 million Americans. Fortunately, due to the Special Diabetes Program and increased investments in diabetes research, we have seen some encouraging breakthroughs and are on the threshold of a number of important new discoveries.

This is particularly true for the estimated 3 million Americans living with type I diabetes. Advances in technology, like continuous glucose monitors, are helping patients control their blood glucose levels, which is key to preventing costly and sometimes deadly diabetes complications. We are also moving closer and closer to our goal of an artificial pancreas, which would control blood glucose levels automatically and revolutionize diabetes care.

The National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration have been extremely supportive of these innovations in diabetes care. I was therefore surprised and extremely troubled to learn that insulin-dependent Medicare beneficiaries are being denied coverage for continuous glucose monitors, or CGMs, because the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, has determined that they do not meet the Medicare definition of durable medical equipment and do not fall under any other Medicare category. As a consequence, we are seeing situations--similar to what we saw with insulin pumps in the late 1990s--where individuals with type 1 diabetes have had coverage for their continuous glucose monitor on their private insurance, only to lose it when they age into Medicare.

A CGM is a physician-prescribed, FDA-approved medical device that can provide real-time readings and data about trends in glucose levels every five minutes, thus enabling someone with insulin-dependent diabetes to eat or take insulin and prevent dangerous low or high glucose levels. As demonstrated by extensive clinical evidence, adults using a CGM have had improved overall glucose control and have reduced rates of hypoglycemia or low blood glucose levels. Professional medical societies, including the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the Endocrine Society, recognize this clinical evidence and have published guidelines recommending CGM be used in appropriate patients with type 1 diabetes. Today, about 95 percent of commercial insurers provide coverage for CGM devices.

The ironic thing is that it is only because of advances in diabetes care like the continuous glucose monitor that people with type 1 diabetes can expect to live long enough to become Medicare beneficiaries. I am particularly concerned given the implications that this coverage decision will have for future decisions regarding artificial pancreas systems, which will combine a continuous glucose monitor, insulin pump, and sophisticated algorithm to control high and low blood sugar around the clock.

I am therefore joining my colleague from New Hampshire and my Co- Chair

of the Senate Diabetes Caucus in introducing the Medicare CGM Access Act of 2014 to create a separate benefit category under Medicare for the continuous glucose monitor and require coverage of the device for individuals meeting specified medical criteria.