No Budget, No OMB Pay Act of 2013

Mr. President, 10 years ago, Senator Ted Kennedy first introduced the Healthy Families Act. This landmark legislation addressed a problem that so many working families struggle with each and every day--how do I balance my job responsibilities with my health and the health of my family? The Healthy Families Act sought to make that difficult juggling act a little bit easier by ensuring that hardworking people have access to paid sick days. At the time, supporters of the bill, myself included, argued that families were under increasing strain, with rising costs, stagnant wages, and disappearing job security. We argued that families were forced to make impossible choices between their jobs and their families. We pledged that working families deserved better.

Today, a decade later, the circumstances facing working families are even more challenging: Americans are still struggling to get by. Wages are still stagnant, job security is even more tenuous, and too many workers struggle with whether to give up a paycheck or put their jobs at risk whenever a child has an asthma attack or an elderly parent comes down with the flu. Ten years later, working families still deserve better.

Today, 10 years later, almost 40 percent of American workers, including \2/3\ of low-wage workers, don't have the ability to earn even a single paid sick day. For these workers, missing work due to an illness, injury, or doctor's appointment can mean putting their job and their family's financial security in jeopardy. As a consequence, many of these workers have no choice but to report to work sick or send their children to school or day care sick--which puts public health in jeopardy as well.

Health officials urge people with contagious illnesses to stay home from work to avoid spreading disease. But workers in industries with the most intensive contact with the public, such as food service and hospitality, are the least likely to have paid sick days. In 2010, three-quarters of food service workers lacked paid sick days. So not surprisingly, nearly two-thirds of restaurant workers have reported cooking or serving food while sick. Similarly, most personal care and service jobs, like child care workers and elder care workers, work with vulnerable populations but are unable to take a sick day without risking their jobs or paychecks. This has clear implications for

public health. In fact, a recent study found that a lack of workplace policies including paid sick days contributed to an additional 5 million cases of influenza-like illness during the H1N1 outbreak in 2009.

It doesn't have to be this way. We can give working people the tools they need to protect their families' health and economic well-being while also safeguarding the public health.

This is why Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro and I are reintroducing the Healthy Families Act, which would allow U.S. workers to earn up to seven paid sick days per year to recover from short-term illness, care for a sick family member, seek routine medical care, or seek help if they are victims of domestic violence. This important legislation will provide much-needed security for hardworking families struggling to balance the obligations of work and family. It will improve public health and decrease health costs by preventing the spread of disease and giving employees better options for obtaining preventive care and treatment. It will also help victims of domestic violence to protect their families and their futures.

Providing paid sick days to workers will be good for working people and their families, and good for our businesses and our economy as well. Allowing workers to attend to their own health or their families' health fosters good will and loyalty toward employers, and boosts morale and productivity in the workplace. In fact, 70 percent of lost productivity due to illness is not attributed to absent workers but rather to ``presenteeism,'' the practice of employees working while sick, infecting their colleagues, and being less productive themselves. Businesses whose workers have paid sick days will also benefit from reduced turnover--and its high associated costs--when workers can hold on to their jobs. Paid sick days can also help reduce occupational injuries. In fact, a recent study found that workers with access to paid sick leave were 28 percent less likely than workers without paid sick leave to suffer nonfatal occupational injuries. Employers themselves are beginning to recognize the positive effects of paid sick days. Five years after paid sick days were implemented in San Francisco, \2/3\ of employers surveyed said they were ``supportive'' of paid sick days, while one third said they were ``very supportive.''

Ensuring that workers have paid sick days will also reduce health care costs, by helping ensure that workers get timely care including preventive care, before medical issues become acute. A 2011 study shows that a universal paid sick days policy would reduce preventable visits to the emergency room and result in cost savings of $1.1 billion per year, including $500 million in savings for public health insurance like Medicaid. And a 2012 study showed that workers with paid sick leave were more likely to get cancer screenings, including a mammogram, Pap test, or endoscopy, and they were more likely to have visited a doctor in the previous year than workers without paid sick leave.

One more very important benefit; paid sick days will allow workers peace of mind and financial security. They won't face a lost paycheck or a lengthy job search each time they become ill. They won't face reduced income and have to cut back on their spending on food, medicine, and other necessities bought in their local communities. Working people will have the security of knowing that if illness strikes, they will be able to tend to their families without losing their jobs or their paychecks.

I thank my colleagues who are joining me today as original cosponsors of this critically important legislation, and I encourage all Senators to join us in supporting the Healthy Families Act. This bill is no less important today than it was when it was first introduced by my friend, the late Senator Ted Kennedy, a decade ago. Knowing that 10 years have gone by and workers around the country have still not secured paid sick days should not discourage us. It should strengthen our resolve to see this basic right afforded to all working Americans and their families.

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

Mr. President, today I join with Senator Paul to introduce the Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013, which will start to take on the problem of the ever-increasing Federal prison population and spiraling costs that spend more and more of our justice budget on keeping people in prison, thereby reducing opportunities to do more to keep our communities safe. This bill will combat injustice in Federal sentencing and the waste of taxpayer dollars by allowing judges appropriate discretion in sentencing.

As a former prosecutor, I understand that criminals must be held accountable and that long sentences are sometimes necessary to keep violent criminals off the street and deter those who would commit violent crime. I have come to believe, however, that mandatory minimum sentences do more harm than good. As Justice Kennedy said, ``In too many cases, mandatory minimum sentences are unwise and unjust.''

Currently a ``safety valve'' provision allows low-level drug offenders to avoid mandatory minimum penalties if certain conditions are met. The bill we introduce today would extend that safety valve to all Federal crimes subject to mandatory minimum penalties, allowing a judge to impose a sentence other than a statutorily designated mandatory sentence in cases in which key factors are present. The judge would be required to provide notice to the parties and to state in writing the reasons justifying the alternative sentence.

The United States has a mass incarceration problem. Between 1970 and 2010, the number of people incarcerated grew by 700 percent. Although the United States has only 5 percent of the world's population, we incarcerate almost a quarter of its prisoners. At the end of 2011, 2.2 million people were in jail or prison in the United States. That means we incarcerate roughly 1 in every 100 adults.

As of last week, the Federal prison population was over 217,000. Almost half of those men and women are imprisoned on drug charges. Compare this with 1980, when the Federal prison population was just 25,000. Since 2000 alone, the Federal prison population has increased by 55 percent.

As more and more people are incarcerated for longer and longer, the resulting costs have placed an enormous strain on the Justice Department's budget and have at the same time severely limited the ability to enact policies that prevent crimes effectively and efficiently. At a time when our economy has been struggling to recover from the worst recession in the last 75 years and our budget is limited, we must look at the wasteful spending that occurs with overincarceration.

At the federal level, over the last 5 years, our prison budget has grown by nearly $2 billion. In 2007, we spent approximately $5.1 billion on Federal prisons. Last year, the Federal Bureau of Prisons requested more than $6.8 billion. That means less money for Federal law enforcement, less aid to State and local law enforcement, and less funding for crime prevention programs and prisoner reentry programs. In short, we have less to spend on the kinds of programs that evidence has shown work best to keep crime rates down. Building more prisons and locking people up for longer and longer--especially nonviolent offenders--is not the best use of taxpayer money and is, in fact, an ineffective means of keeping our communities safe.

The proliferation of Federal mandatory minimum sentences is not the only factor driving the increase in incarceration rates, but it is an important factor. The number of mandatory minimum penalties in the Federal code nearly doubled from 1991 to 2011. Even those defendants not subject to mandatory minimums have seen their penalties increase as a result of mandatory penalties being incorporated into the U.S. sentencing guidelines.

In addition to driving up our prison population, mandatory minimum penalties can lead to terribly unjust results in individual cases. This is why a large majority of judges oppose mandatory minimum sentences. In a 2010 survey by the U.S. Sentencing Commission of more than 600 Federal district court judges, nearly 70 percent agreed that the existing safety valve provision should be extended to all Federal offenses. That is what our bill does.

Judges, who hand down sentences and can see close up when they are appropriate and just, overwhelmingly oppose mandatory minimum sentences.

Congress has too often moved in the wrong direction by imposing new mandatory minimum sentences unsupported by evidence while failing to reauthorize crucial programs like the Second Chance Act to rehabilitate prisoners who will be released to rejoin our communities. Our reliance on mandatory minimums has been a great mistake. I am not convinced it has reduced crime, but I am convinced it has imprisoned people, particularly nonviolent offenders, for far longer than is just or beneficial. It is time for us to let judges go back to acting as judges and making decisions based on the individual facts before them. A one- size-fits-all approach to sentencing does not make us safer.

This is a bipartisan issue. Sentencing reform works. States, including very conservative States such as Texas, that have implemented sentencing reform have saved money and seen their crime rates drop.

I thank Senator Paul for his dedication to this cause and for working with me on this legislation. I hope other Senators will join us in advancing this legislation and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are used more efficiently to better prevent crime rather than simply building more prisons.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the No Budget No OMB Pay Act of 2013.

The No Budget No OMB Pay Act of 2013 will prohibit paying the salaries of the OMB Director, the Deputy Director of OMB, and the Deputy Director for Management of OMB for any period of time that the President is late in meeting his statutory requirement of submitting a budget by the first Monday of February.

As many of my colleagues know, it has been over 1,400 days since the Senate has passed a budget. It is certainly progress that the Majority has decided to finally put forward a budget and that the Senate will be able to debate and amend a budget--a budget that raises taxes by $1.5 trillion, increases Washington spending by 62 percent, and fails to balance the budget anytime in the next ten years.

Unfortunately, for the first time in recent memory, Congress is acting before receiving the President's budget. According to a recent headline in the March 11, 2013 edition of the National Journal this is unprecedented and is a break from a 92-year tradition of having the President exercise leadership in the budget process.

Current law requires the President to send his budget by the first Monday of February. But President Obama has ignored this requirement. In fact, he has missed the statutory deadline four out of five times. This year he was required to issue his budget proposal on February 4, 2013. But he missed this deadline. So while the Senate is finally acting, it has been 44 days since the President has failed to live up to his commitment.

We know that for Congress to get paid, it must live up to its responsibilities and pass a budget. The OMB Director and other high- level OMB officials also have obligations to meet. After all, these officials are responsible for putting together the President's budget. Both the executive and legislative branch share responsibility when it comes to the federal budget. But without Presidential leadership Washington spending will remain out of control. Taxpayers deserve better. They deserve accountability.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the No Budget No OMB Pay Act of 2013.

The No Budget No OMB Pay Act of 2013 will prohibit paying the salaries of the OMB Director, the Deputy Director of OMB, and the Deputy Director for Management of OMB for any period of time that the President is late in meeting his statutory requirement of submitting a budget by the first Monday of February.

As many of my colleagues know, it has been over 1,400 days since the Senate has passed a budget. It is certainly progress that the Majority has decided to finally put forward a budget and that the Senate will be able to debate and amend a budget--a budget that raises taxes by $1.5 trillion, increases Washington spending by 62 percent, and fails to balance the budget anytime in the next ten years.

Unfortunately, for the first time in recent memory, Congress is acting before receiving the President's budget. According to a recent headline in the March 11, 2013 edition of the National Journal this is unprecedented and is a break from a 92-year tradition of having the President exercise leadership in the budget process.

Current law requires the President to send his budget by the first Monday of February. But President Obama has ignored this requirement. In fact, he has missed the statutory deadline four out of five times. This year he was required to issue his budget proposal on February 4, 2013. But he missed this deadline. So while the Senate is finally acting, it has been 44 days since the President has failed to live up to his commitment.

We know that for Congress to get paid, it must live up to its responsibilities and pass a budget. The OMB Director and other high- level OMB officials also have obligations to meet. After all, these officials are responsible for putting together the President's budget. Both the executive and legislative branch share responsibility when it comes to the federal budget. But without Presidential leadership Washington spending will remain out of control. Taxpayers deserve better. They deserve accountability.

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

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