Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my friend and colleague from North Dakota, Senator Heitkamp, in introducing the School Food Modernization Act to assist schools in providing healthier meals to students throughout the country.

School meals play a vital role in the lives of our young people. More than 30 million children participate in the National School Lunch Program every school day. In Maine, 40 percent of children qualify for free or reduced-price meals based on household income.

The food served at schools to these children affects their health and well-being. Many children consume up to half their daily caloric intake at school. In fact, children often get their most nutritious meal of the day at school instead of at home. At the same time, too many of our children are at risk of serious disease. One-third of the children in this country are overweight or obese, which increases their risk for heart disease, high blood pressure, Type 2 Diabetes and other chronic diseases. These conditions may have a lifelong effect on their health as they grow to adulthood.

In response to concerns about the health of our children, our schools have stepped up to the plate. Nationwide, schools are working diligently to meet the new U.S. Department of Agriculture standards and serve healthier meals. For example, in the New Sweden Consolidated School in Aroostook County, ME, food service manager Melanie Lagasse prepares meals from scratch instead of opening cans or pushing a defrost button. The school's 64 students, ranging from preschool to eighth grade, have grown to relish the chicken stew, baked fish, and meatloaf that she makes fresh.

Many schools, however, lack the right tools for preparing meals rich in fresh ingredients and must rely on workarounds that are expensive, inefficient, and unsustainable. Schools built decades ago lack the tools and the infrastructure necessary beyond reheating and holding food for meal service.

To serve healthier meals to their students, 99 percent of Maine school districts need at least one piece of equipment and almost half, 48 percent, of districts need kitchen infrastructure upgrades. The median equipment need per school is $45,000.

Even more costly would be making the required changes to infrastructure. Forty-eight percent of Maine schools need some kind of infrastructure change to serve healthy meals. For example, 41 percent of schools need more physical space, 22 percent need more electrical capacity, 21 percent need more plumbing capacity, and 19 percent need more ventilation.

Add the equipment costs together with the infrastructure costs and it is estimated that overall, $58.8 million would be needed just in Maine to serve healthy meals to all of our students. That far exceeds the $111,000 in grants that the USDA awarded Maine during the last two fiscal years for new equipment.

Our bill authorizes loan guarantee assistance and grants for school equipment and infrastructure improvements, thereby helping food service personnel meet nutrition standards. First, it would establish a loan guarantee assistance program within USDA to help schools acquire new equipment to prepare and serve healthier, more nutritious meals to students. School administrators and other eligible borrowers could obtain Federal guarantees for 80 percent of the loan value needed to construct, remodel, or expand their kitchens, dining, or food storage infrastructure.

Second, the bill would provide targeted grant assistance to give school administrators and food service directors the seed funding needed to upgrade kitchen infrastructure or to purchase high-quality, durable kitchen equipment such as commercial ovens, steamers, and stoves.

Finally, to aid school food service personnel in meeting the nutrition guidelines, the legislation would strengthen training and provide technical assistance by authorizing USDA to provide support on a competitive basis to highly qualified third-party trainers to develop and administer training and technical assistance, including online programs.

We need to start our school children off on the right food every day. If they are going to be able to learn and compete, they need to be healthy and their minds and bodies fully nourished. This bill will help us achieve that goal.

Mr. President, Alzheimer's is a terrible disease that takes a tremendous personal and economic toll on the individual, the family, and society. In addition to the human suffering it causes, Alzheimer's costs the United States an estimated $226 billion a year, including $153 billion from the Medicare and Medicaid Programs. These costs will only skyrocket as the baby boom generation ages. Already our Nation's costliest disease, Alzheimer's is projected to cost more than $1.1 trillion if nothing is done to change its current trajectory. It is now estimated that nearly one in two of the baby boomers reaching age 85 will develop Alzheimer's. As a consequence, chances are that members of the baby boom generation will either be spending their golden years suffering with Alzheimer's or caring for someone who has it. In many ways Alzheimer's has become the defining disease of this generation.

If we are to prevent Alzheimer's from becoming the defining disease of the next generation, it is imperative that we dramatically increase our investment in Alzheimer's research. At a time when the United States is spending some $226 billion a year caring for Alzheimer's patients, we are spending less than three-tenths of 1 percent of that amount--under $600 million a year--on research. This makes no sense. We currently spend $4.5 billion a year for cancer research, $3 billion a year for research on HIV-AIDS, and $2 billion for cardiovascular research--all investments that have paid dividends.

Surely we can do more for Alzheimer's given the tremendous human and economic price of this devastating disease. Investments in research for other diseases have yielded tremendous results. We see that with cancer, with HIV/AIDS. Patients have access to new treatments, and death rates for some of these diseases are decreasing. At the same time, mortality due to Alzheimer's is escalating.

Alzheimer's is one of our Nation's leading causes of death, with recent data revealing that each year more than 500,000 deaths are attributable to Alzheimer's and other dementia, 6 times the amount previously estimated. Moreover, Alzheimer's is the only one of our Nation's top 10 deadliest diseases without an effective means of prevention, treatment or a cure.

Fortunately there is promising research that holds hope for Alzheimer's patients and their families. The research community is poised to make important advances through clinical trials and by investigating new therapeutic targets, but adequate funding is critical to achieve this promise. The National Plan to Address Alzheimer's Disease was authorized by the bipartisan National Alzheimer's Act, which I coauthored with then-Senator Evan Bayh.

The national plan has as its primary goal to prevent and effectively treat Alzheimer's disease by the year 2025. The chairman of the advisory council that was created by the act, Dr. Ronald Petersen of the Mayo Clinic, has testified before Congress that the United States should be devoting $2 billion a year at a minimum to Alzheimer's research in order to reach that goal.

A dramatic increase in funding for Alzheimer's research will not just save lives, it will also save money. According to a report issued by the Alzheimer's Association last year, a Federal investment of $2 billion a year between now and the year 2025, as recommended by the experts on the Alzheimer's Advisory Council and the scientific community more broadly, would be recouped within the first 3 years after a treatment delaying the onset of Alzheimer's by just 5 years becomes available.

I am therefore pleased to be introducing today, with my colleagues Senators Klobuchar, Mikulski, Warner, Durbin, and Stabenow, a resolution declaring that the goal of preventing and effectively treating Alzheimer's is an urgent national priority. In recognition of the fact that bold action and considerable increases in funding are necessary to meet that goal, our resolution states that the Senate will strive to double the amount of funding the United States spends on Alzheimer's research in fiscal year 2016 and that we will develop a plan to meet the target of $2 billion over the next 5 years.

Our bill is supported by a number of organizations including the Alzheimer's Association, UsAgainstAlzheimer's, the Leaders Engaged on Alzheimer's Disease--or the LEAD Coalition--and the Alzheimer's Foundation of America.

I ask unanimous consent that the letters from these organizations be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we have to face the facts that if we do not invest in Alzheimer's research at the levels the experts tell us is necessary to develop effective treatments for this disease or perhaps a means of prevention or eventually a cure, this disease is going to continue to cause untold suffering not only for its victims but for its families, and it will bankrupt America 's health care system.

I urge our colleagues to join us as cosponsors. I want, in particular, to recognize my partner in this effort, the Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar. The home of the Mayo Clinic is in her State. She has been stalwart in supporting the efforts to increase funding for Alzheimer's research.

With that, I am very pleased to yield to my partner, Senator Klobuchar.

Mr. President. I wish to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the Town of Woodstock, ME. Known today as a gateway to the rugged and beautiful Western Maine Mountains, Woodstock was built with a spirit of determination and resiliency that still guides the community today.

Woodstock's incorporation on Feb. 7, 1815, was but one milestone on a long journey of progress. For thousands of years, the banks of the Androscoggin River and its tributaries were the hunting grounds of the Abenaki Tribe. One of the legends that attests to the friendship that developed between the Native Americans and the first European settler concerns the Abenaki Princess Mollyocket, a woman with great spirit and knowledge of healing. A few years before the town was incorporated, she was called to the small settlement of Trap Corner to attend to a seriously ill infant. She nursed the baby back to health and pronounced that he would grow to greatness. Mollyocket's patient was Hannibal Hamlin, who became Abraham Lincoln's first Vice President.

Settlement began in 1787, when 10 lots of 100 acres each were surveyed. The early settlers at what was called The Thousand Acre Squadron were drawn by fertile soil, vast forests, and fast-moving waters, which they turned into productive farms and busy mills. The wealth produced by the land and by hard work and determination was invested in schools and churches to create a true community. In 1815, 5 years before Maine statehood, the settlers' petition for incorporation to the Governor of Massachusetts was readily signed, although, for reasons lost to history, he rejected the proposed name of Sparta and chose Woodstock instead.

The main population center of Woodstock is the Village of Bryant Pond, known for its beauty, recreation opportunities, and hospitality. Bryant Pond also is home to a 14-foot tall, 3,000-pound statue of an old-fashioned, hand-cranked telephone, the kind that had a human operator on the other end, to memorialize the town's distinction as the last place in the United States to use these devices. The townspeople finally gave up their hand-cranked telephones in 1983, but they retain their fondness for the personal touch.

Woodstock is a charming town of involved citizens. The active historical society, volunteer fire department, and library are evidence of a strong community spirit. That spirit will be on full display this June, when Woodstock holds it Great Bicentennial Celebration.

This 200th anniversary is not just about something that is measured in calendar years; it is about human accomplishment, an occasion to celebrate the people who for more than two centuries have pulled together, cared for one another, and built a community. Thanks to those who came before, Woodstock has a wonderful history. Thanks to those who are there today, it has a bright future.

Mr. President, in light of the eloquent remarks from the assistant Democratic leader who is my friend, I hope he will listen carefully to the proposal I am about to outline.

In just over 3 weeks the law that funds the Department of Homeland Security will expire, jeopardizing the Department's ability to carry out its critical mission. Legislation to provide funding to the Department throughout the remainder of this fiscal year has passed the House and is awaiting action in the Senate, but progress has stalled. The Democrats have blocked it from even being considered because it is not a clean bill.

On my side of the aisle House Republicans have insisted that provisions remain in the bill directing the administration to spend no funds implementing a series of Presidential orders issued over the past few years.

The Senate has held two votes this week to try to begin debate on this bill, both of which have failed on near-party lines. Thus, we have reached an impasse.

In an attempt to find a path forward, yesterday I filed an amendment in the nature of a substitute that would accomplish three goals. First, it would ensure that the Department of Homeland Security is fully funded to perform its vital mission to protect our

people. Second, it would allow the Senate to go on record in strong opposition to the President's extraordinarily broad immigration Executive order issued last November. Third, it would protect the DREAMers whom Senator Durbin just talked about.

I wish to go back to the November Executive order. This particular Executive order represents a misuse of the President's authority that threatens to undermine the separation of powers doctrine in our Constitution. As the President himself has said more than 20 times, he does not have the authority to expand the law in this manner. He made the exact point in remarks of July 2011 when he said:

I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books. . . . Now,

I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the

laws on my own. . . . But that's not how our system works.

That's not how our democracy functions. That's not how our

Constitution is written.

The President was exactly right when he stated that reality. The substitute I proposed would block the sweeping 2014 Executive order, but it does not overturn the more limited Executive orders from past years.

Specifically, my amendment would not undo the 2012 deferred action program that allowed DREAMers, young people brought to the United States by their parents years ago, to receive legal status as long as they meet certain requirements.

The House bill includes a controversial amendment, which I do not support, that would invalidate this 2012 program retroactively.

My substitute accomplishes my third goal of protecting these children who have grown up here, who speak English, have clean criminal records, and often know no other country. They did not make the choice to come to America. That decision was made by their parent or parents.

My substitute amendment, therefore, is straightforward. First, the amendment mirrors the underlying bill with respect to the funding levels provided to the Department of Homeland Security so it can carry out its functions. Ironically, there is no dispute over those funding levels. Second, it strikes the House provision restricting the expenditure of funds to implement the DREAMers Program that I described and that Senator Durbin just commented on.

And third, it retains the House prohibition on expenditures to fund the President's unauthorized action on immigration announced in November of last year.

Now, let me make clear that Congress should consider comprehensive immigration reform. The fact that there are now an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States is irrefutable evidence that our immigration and border security systems are badly broken. That is why I supported the bipartisan immigration reform bill that passed the Senate in 2013.

While I was disappointed that immigration reform legislation of some sort did not become law, I reject the notion that its failure can serve as the justification for the action taken by the President last November. He cannot do by Executive fiat what Congress refused to pass, regardless of the wisdom of Congress's decision. Such unilateral action is contrary to how our constitutional system is supposed to work, and it risks undermining the separation of powers doctrine, which is central to our constitutional framework.

Our Constitution vests the power to make law in the legislative branch--with Congress--not with the President. To the President it assigns the obligation to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. That was the rule used by the Supreme Court in 1952 in the famous Youngstown Sheet & Tubing case that overturned President Truman's Executive Order nationalizing the steel industry to prevent a strike during the Korean War.

As the Court explained, the President's power to faithfully execute the laws does not make him a lawmaker. The Court said:

(T)he Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking

process to the recommending of laws that he thinks wise and

the vetoing of laws he thinks bad.

In other words, the President is not free to pick and choose among laws, enforcing the ones that he likes and ignoring the ones that he doesn't.

The President is fully aware of this fact. He has often made the point that he could go no further than to protect the DREAMers. Here is what he said:

Congress has said ``here is the law'' when it comes to

those who are undocumented. . . . What we can do is to carve

out the DREAM Act, saying young people who have basically

grown up here are Americans that we should welcome. . . . But

if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be

ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very

difficult to defend legally. So that's not an option.

Those are the President's own words. The action taken by the President in November is a direct contradiction to his own statements. By acting unilaterally, ironically, the President is making it less likely that Congress will act to pass comprehensive reforms. He is undermining the efforts of those of us who favor immigration reform by diverting energy and attention from that goal.

I urge my colleagues to give consideration to the proposed compromise that I filed as a substitute yesterday. It will ensure that the men and women on the front lines of the Department of Homeland Security can do their vitally important jobs, it will overturn the President's misuse of his Executive authority last November, and it will protect the legal status of children brought to this country by their parents years ago.

Mr. President, I believe I have put forth a reasonable, constructive compromise that could get us out of this impasse that is such a disservice to so many. I hope my colleagues will join together and support the substitute I have proposed.

Mr. President, Maine and Maryland have in common not only delicious seafood but also fine craft beers.

I am delighted to join my friend and colleague Senator Cardin in support of the legislation that we have introduced, S. 375, the Small Brewer Reinvestment and Expanding Workforce Act, or Small BREW Act.

The title is more than just a clever acronym. It is a statement of what our bipartisan bill really is all about. This is a jobs bill, and those covered by the bill are small businesses, entrepreneurs who are taking risks and creating jobs in communities around the country.

We often talk in this Chamber about what we can do to help create the environment that encourages job creation. Our bill is one such practical means where we can spur the creation of new jobs as well as great products.

In Maine, we are proud to boast that our State is now home to more than 60 breweries that produce more than 200 different brands. Maine beer is shipped around the country and has developed a real following among connoisseurs who have come to appreciate its quality and craftsmanship. This, in turn, has led to new tourism opportunities as visitors are drawn to our State to sample our delicious Maine craft beers. As the craft beer industry grows, so too does demand for American-grown barley and hops and American-made brewing, bottling, canning, and other equipment. Beyond creating delicious beer, these breweries are creating jobs. That is the whole rationale behind the bill we have introduced.

In Maine alone, our craft breweries employ more than 1,400 people. That is an extraordinary number of jobs. As the Senator from Maryland has pointed out, these are jobs that are going to stay right here in America. They are not going to be outsourced. These are small businesses in our communities that are hiring people and making a difference.

Nationally small and independent brewers employ more than 110,000 full- and part-time employees, generating more than $3 billion in wages and benefits, and pay more than $2.3 billion in business, personal, and consumption taxes, according to the Brewers Association.

What could we do to encourage even more employment in this area? The answer is to reduce the Federal excise tax on small craft brewers, and that is exactly what our bill would do. It would free up capital so these small business owners can reinvest in their companies and create more jobs.

Under the current law, as Senator Cardin has pointed out, these small businesses pay $7 per barrel in Federal excise tax on the first 60,000 barrels they brew and $18 per barrel on every barrel thereafter. The Small BREW Act would reduce these rates to $3.50 on the first 60,000 barrels and $16 for production between 60,000 and 2 million barrels. Thereafter, the rate would remain at $18 per barrel.

We know from the economic analysis that has been done that such a change would have a significant positive economic impact. A June 2013 study prepared by a professor, then at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, estimated that our bill would increase economic activity by $1 billion over 5 years, create more than 5,000 new jobs in the first year to 18 months after passage, and create approximately 400 new jobs annually thereafter.

Again, I want to repeat, this is a jobs bill, and I am proud to sponsor it with my friend Senator Cardin. I am also delighted that we have the support of such a large number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including my colleague from Maine, Senator King.

I urge all of our colleagues to take a look at this bill. If you want to do something that is concrete and we know will create more jobs for a growing industry that is carving out a niche in so many States across this Nation, then work with us to achieve passage of the Small BREW Act.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, and I be permitted to proceed for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. President, today Senator Nelson and I rise to discuss S. 266, the Retirement Security Act, legislation we filed earlier this week and first introduced last year. Our bill would encourage more small employers to offer retirement plans that would provide incentives for employees to save more for retirement and would ensure that low-income and middle-income taxpayers are able to claim tax benefits for retirement savings that are already authorized in law.

Our bill is the product of the work that Senator Nelson and I did together on the Special Committee on Aging. In the fall of 2013, the committee conducted a hearing on retirement security where we heard from witnesses that far too many American seniors have real reason to fear they will outlive their savings. According to the nonpartisan Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, there is an estimated $6.6 trillion gap between the savings that American households need to maintain their standard of living in retirement and what they actually have. The group that was surveyed were those Americans between ages 32 and 64.

Nationally, one in four retired Americans has no source of income beyond Social Security. In the State of Maine the number is one in three. While 4 in 10 rely on this vital program for 90 percent of their retirement income, Social Security provides an average benefit of just $1,294 per month--less than $16,000 per year.

It is hard to imagine stretching those dollars far enough to pay the bills. Certainly a comfortable retirement would be out of the question for most Americans.

A recent Gallup poll shows there is an increase in concern among the American people about their standard of living in retirement. This has gone up over time. Two decades ago 34 percent of Americans were concerned. Now 60 percent of Americans are worried about their standard of living in retirement.

Sadly, they are right to be concerned. Projections published in 2014 by the Employee Benefit Research Institute showed that nearly half of ``early boomers''--those between ages 56 and 62 when the study was conducted--are at risk of not having enough money to pay for basic costs in retirement, including health care costs not covered by insurance.

There are many reasons for the decline in retirement security facing American seniors, including the demise of many defined-benefit pension plans in the private sector, the severity of the financial crisis we recently endured, rising health care costs, the greater and expanding need for long-term care, which is so expensive, but most of all the fact that Americans are living far longer than they did in the past. Many of us are also reaching retirement age with far more debt than retirees of previous generations.

Another contributing factor we found is that employees of small businesses are much less likely to participate in employer-based retirement plans. According to a July 2013 GAO study, more than half of the 42 million Americans who work for businesses with fewer than 100 employees lack access to a work-based plan to save for retirement. Cost and complexity are among the reasons that plans are not more widely offered by smaller employers.

These employers would very much like to offer plans, but oftentimes the cost and the complexity make the plans out of reach. Therefore, making it easier for smaller businesses to provide access to retirement plans for their workers would make a significant difference in the financial security of many retirees. That is why the bill that we reintroduced earlier this week focuses on reducing the cost and complexity of retirement plans, especially for small businesses, and on encouraging individuals to save more for retirement.

Let me now go into detail about the provisions of our bill.

First, our bill would allow small businesses to enter into multiple employer plans, MEPs, to offer retirement programs jointly to their employees. This allows small companies to share the administrative burden of a retirement plan, which helps lower costs. Current law discourages the use of MEPs because it requires a connection, or ``nexus,'' between unrelated businesses in order to join a MEP, such as membership in the same trade association. Our bill would waive the nexus requirement for businesses with fewer than 500 employees. So as not to discourage growth, our bill provides a long phase-out under which businesses are not automatically disqualified from a MEP when they hire their 500th employee.

Second, our bill makes joining a MEP a more attractive option for small businesses. Under current law, if one employer in a MEP fails to meet the minimum criteria necessary for retirement plans to obtain tax benefits, all employers and their employees could lose these tax benefits, which are substantial. For employees, they include delaying the taxation of income contributed to a plan until funds are withdrawn. For employers, plan disqualification could result in limited deductions and a higher tax burden. Our bill directs Treasury to issue regulations to address this uncertainty, and protect members of a MEP from the failure of one bad apple to meet its obligations.

Third, our bill reduces the cost of maintaining a retirement plan. Current law requires that participants in a retirement plan receive a variety of notices. Our bill would direct Treasury to simplify, clarify, and consolidate these required notices, to lessen costs.

Fourth, the Retirement Security Act encourages those still in the workforce to save more for retirement. Retirement plans are often designed to comply with existing safe harbors to prevent the IRS from challenging the tax benefits that flow to employees and employers. The existing safe harbor for so-called ``automatic enrollment'' plans effectively caps employee contributions at 10 percent of annual pay, with the employer contributing a ``matching'' amount of up to 6 percent. Our bill creates an additional safe harbor for these plans that would allow employees to receive an employer match on contributions of up to 10 percent of their pay.

I recognize that businesses that choose to adopt a plan with this new optional safe harbor may face additional costs due to the increased employer match. That is why our bill helps the smallest businesses-- those with fewer than 100 employees--offset this cost by providing a new tax credit equal to the increased match.

Finally, our bill ensures that current measures to encourage savings are functioning as they were intended. One such measure is the so- called ``saver's credit,'' which reduces the tax burden on low- and middle-income individuals who contribute to retirement plans, including IRAs and 401(k) plans. Yet the credit cannot be claimed on a form 1040EZ, which is frequently used by these individuals. A 2013 Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies survey found that only 23 percent of people with household incomes of less than $50,000 per year, the group most likely to qualify, were aware of the saver's credit. To address this, our bill directs Treasury to make the credit available on Form 1040 EZ.

I do want to emphasize in closing that is there is nothing in our bill that would force a small business to offer a 401(k) plan. That may be impractical for some small employers. What we are trying to do is to provide incentives for them to do so, to reduce the cost, and to make it possible for them to join together with other employers to offer retirement plans. We are trying also to provide incentives for employees to save more for their retirement.

During my time on the Special Committee on Aging, I have heard countless stories of retirees whose savings did not go as far as they had anticipated. Adequate savings reduce poverty among our seniors in what should be their golden years. As the HELP Committee noted in a July 2012 report, poverty among the elderly also increases Medicare and Medicaid costs and strains our social safety net. Giving those not yet at retirement age more opportunities to save--and to save more--would help ease this additional burden on entitlement programs that are already projected to be unsustainable.

In light of the positive impacts this bill would have in strengthening retirement security for millions of Americans, I urge our colleagues to join Senator Nelson and me in supporting the Retirement Security Act of 2015. This bill has been endorsed by the Maine State Chamber of Commerce, the American Benefits Council, the American Council of Life Insurers, Fidelity Investments, Lincoln Financial Group, the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors, the Plan Sponsor Council of America, the Principal Financial Group, the Society for Human Resource Management, TransAmerica, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these as well as other letters of support.

Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, and I are offering an amendment that would help school officials to learn about existing Federal programs to improve energy efficiency in order to reduce school energy costs. It would not authorize any new programs or any new funding. It would simply require a review of existing Federal programs and require the Department of Energy to establish a coordinating structure so that schools can more easily navigate the many programs that are scattered across the Federal Government.

I know of no opposition to the amendment. To try to make life easier for my colleagues, if it is acceptable to the managers, I would be happy to accept a voice vote.

I don't know if my colleague from Virginia has any comments he would like to make.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging, having adopted rules governing its procedures for the 114th Congress, have a copy of their rules printed in the Record pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I may call up amendment No. 35.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I thank the Senator from Alaska for yielding to me for this purpose and I commend her, as well as the Senator from Washington State, for their extraordinary management of this bill.

I am pleased to report that the amendment I have called up and made pending is actually a bipartisan initiative. It is cosponsored by my colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, and its purpose is to help school officials to learn more easily about Federal programs and incentives that are available to improve energy efficiency and thus lower costs for our Nation's schools.

There are a number of Federal initiatives already available to schools to help them become more energy efficient, but in many cases schools are not taking full advantage of these programs. The reason for that is because they are scattered across several agencies and are difficult to access.

I want to make it clear to my colleagues that Senator Warner and I are not proposing the creation of any new programs to help schools become more energy efficient but rather to have more coordination and to streamline those programs which already exist.

Our amendment would require the Department of Energy to be the leader of these programs and help schools identify and navigate them, and that in turn would be a great service to our Nation's schools.

As I said, by providing a streamlined coordinating structure, this amendment would help schools navigate available Federal programs and financing without authorizing new programs or funding. Decisions about how best to meet the energy needs of their schools would appropriately remain in the hands of States, school boards, and local officials.

Specifically, the amendment would establish the Department of Energy as the lead agency for coordinating and disseminating information on existing Federal energy efficiency programs and financing options available to schools for initiating, developing, and financing energy efficiency, renewable energy, and energy retrofitting projects.

The amendment would also require DOE to review existing Federal programs--scattered at the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Treasury, the IRS, and EPA--so schools know what is available.

It would also streamline communication and outreach to the States, local education agencies, and schools and the development of a mechanism for forming a peer-to-peer network to support the initiation of the projects.

Finally, the amendment would require the Department of Energy to provide technical assistance to help schools navigate the financing and development of such projects to better ensure their success.

Assisting our nation's schools in navigating and tapping into existing federal programs to lower energy usage and save money makes good common sense.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Collins-Warner amendment No. 35.

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside and that I be permitted to proceed as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Madam President, in President Obama's State of the Union Address last week, he outlined an agenda focused on what he called middle-class economics, which he described as providing Americans with the ``tools they needed to go as far as their effort and their dreams will take them.''

Our country thrives when hard-working Americans prosper. The President was right to praise policies, such as the GI bill and Social Security, that have helped us to do just that. That is why I am perplexed at the President's proposal to tax the earnings of 529 college savings plan accounts. Rather than help American families meet the onerous cost of a college education, this new tax would greatly diminish the benefits of a law that is helping millions of parents plan for their children's futures. The President's proposal undermines the very values we should be promoting--families making sacrifices today in order to better provide for their children tomorrow. The President's plan would also lead to more student loan debt for many young people at a time when concern over the level of debt is rising.

I would also note that the President has proposed eliminating the tax deduction on interest on student loan payments.

One of the first questions new parents ask themselves is how they will be able to pay for their children's education. For the past 14 years the 529 accounts have been an important part of the answer. They have allowed parents to save for their children's education in tax- advantaged accounts. Regular, affordable contributions made with after- tax dollars from their paychecks grow over time. When college years start, those savings and the earnings from their investments can be withdrawn tax free for educational expenses. These small sacrifices made from paycheck to paycheck can have an enormous impact, making real the dream of higher education.

Parents know that receiving a college degree greatly improves their child's future earnings potential. In fact, according to data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau in the year 2011, individuals with college degrees earn approximately $1 million more over the course of their careers than do workers with high school diplomas. Census data also showed that people with higher levels of education are more likely to be employed full time year-round. College graduates also tend to have access to more specialized jobs that, in turn, yield higher wages.

Critics of the 529 plans assert that they disproportionately benefit very high-income families who could afford to pay for college without the tax-free growth in these dedicated savings accounts. Data from the College Savings Foundation, however, counters this assertion. According to the foundation, the average value in one of these 529 accounts is $19,774. Additionally, the average contribution to accounts that receive regular electronic contributions, such as those coming from paycheck withholding, is just $175 a month. That is clearly more in line with hard-working families trying to make ends meet than with affluent families who enjoy significant disposable income.

My home State provides a great example of the benefits of the 529 law. After this law was passed in 2001, thousands of Maine families established these accounts, but then came a powerful extra incentive. In 2008 the Harold Alfond Foundation, which was established by one of Maine's greatest philanthropists, created the Harold Alfond College Challenge. This program now provides a $500 contribution to the college savings account of every baby born in Maine. To date, some 23,000 Maine families have used this generous gift to begin planning for the future education of their children. As their parents' own contributions are added to the account, the future becomes even brighter for these children and for our State. As the children grow and make their own contributions from afterschool and summer jobs, so too grows their appreciation of financial responsibility and self-reliance.

The President says his proposal is driven in part by the need to simplify the Tax Code. Our Tax Code certainly needs simplification, and I hope that becomes a major accomplishment of this Congress. But the question must be asked--how does creating a difference between the 529 contributions already made, which would remain untaxed, and new contributions, which would be taxed, simplify anything? And perhaps more to the point, in addition to simplification, our Tax Code needs predictability.

Before I joined the Senate, I was employed at Husson University in Bangor, ME--an outstanding institution that has a high percentage of students who are the very first in their families to attend college. Every day, I saw how hard parents and students worked, how many sacrifices they made in order to make higher education a reality.

My experience at Husson is the chief reason why one of the very first bills I introduced in this Chamber was the College Affordability and Access Act. That bill called for creating tax-preferred education savings account--the precursor to the Coverdell savings accounts--tax incentives for employer-provided educational assistance, and a tax deduction for student loan interest. Many provisions of that bill are now law but would also be harmed by the President's proposal.

The 529 college savings plan program channels the determination that I saw while working at Husson University and that exists throughout our great country into a tangible benefit built upon the virtues of saving and planning for the future. Changing the tax rules for the 529 accounts would break a promise to families across this country who are working hard to save for their children's educations to help them attain a brighter future.

I urge my colleagues to join me in working to make college more accessible and more affordable and to save the 529 college savings plan program.

I thank the sponsors and managers of this bill.

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

I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Before I begin my comments, let me commend the Presiding Officer on her excellent presentation last night. The Presiding Officer did an extraordinary job and made all of us very proud.

Forty Hours is Full Time Act

Madam President, 2 weeks ago Senator Joe Donnelly and I reintroduced bipartisan legislation that we call the Forty Hours is Full Time Act. It would correct a serious flaw in the Affordable Care Act that threatens the hours and pay of part-time workers all across America. Our bill would change the definition of ``full-time'' work under ObamaCare from 30 hours a week to the standard 40 hours a week, a commonsense threshold that has always been the standard for full-time work. In fact, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, it is 40 hours a week that defines ``full time,'' after which workers are eligible in many cases for overtime.

Information I received from the Home Care & Hospice Alliance of Maine demonstrates that this illogical definition of ``full-time'' work could result in hundreds of home health care workers losing their jobs and 1,000 seniors losing access to home care services in the State of Maine alone.

The impact would be just as severe outside of Maine, a point driven home by a letter I recently received from the National Association for Home Care & Hospice, an organization that represents caregivers who provide in-home health and hospice services to chronically ill, disabled, and dying Americans. The association just conducted a survey of its members that reveals the devastating impact this definition will have on home care and hospice services around the country if Congress does not act to change it. Let me share with my colleagues just a few of the key findings of this survey.

Nationally, four out of five home care and hospice providers are unable to provide health benefits to their employees because they rely on government programs such as Medicaid, with its low reimbursement levels, and because they provide services to people with limited incomes.

So it is not as if they can simply boost their rates. In many cases their rates are set by Medicaid and at a very low level. In other cases they are serving people with limited incomes who simply cannot afford more expensive home care.

Another finding: Three out of four providers will have to cut the hours of their caregivers. That means those caregivers who are engaged in such compassionate and skilled work will have smaller paychecks on which to live.

Nine out of ten providers expect patients to lose access to home care in their communities.

One in five providers of home care and hospice services will actually have to close their doors. Think of the impact closing one in five home care and hospice agencies would have on America's seniors and our disabled citizens. In my view, taking action to spare this vulnerable population would, by itself, justify restoring the threshold for full- time work to the standard 40 hours a week.

But this is not the only reason to do so. Reforming the law would also help protect the caregivers who provide the services as well as their patients, and ironically it would protect taxpayers as well. Data from Maine's Medicaid Program shows that home care services are extremely cost-effective compared to alternatives. If access to these services is restricted because of the application of the 30-hour rule, those in need of these services will be forced into costlier forms of care paid for by Medicaid and Medicare, such as hospitals and nursing homes, driving up both Federal and State costs. In addition, the patients now served by home health care providers would no longer be able to receive vital care in the comfort, privacy, and security of their own homes.

So whether we look at it from the perspective of the patients served or the caregivers employed or the taxpayers who pay for the Medicare and Medicaid Programs, this hurts all three groups. Of course, there is obviously a lot of overlap among those groups.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, immediately following my remarks, an excellent letter from the National Association for Home Care & Hospice which elaborates on the problems created by this definition under ObamaCare.

Of course, the justification for using the standard definition of full-time work extends far beyond the field of home care services to the full breadth of our economy. Raising the threshold for full-time work to 40 hours a week is necessary not only to protect the paychecks of workers employed by private sector businesses, such as restaurants and hotel staff, but also to protect those who work in the public sector, such as substitute teachers, ed techs, and schoolbus drivers, to name just a few.

The 30-hour rule will not only harm school staff who want and need more work, but it will also hurt our students by causing unnecessary disruption in the classroom. It does not make sense to have to limit substitute teachers to 29 hours a week because of the definition of ``full-time'' work under ObamaCare. That means there will be a revolving door of substitutes in our classrooms and lower paychecks once again for those substitute teachers.

I have also heard of a school district that has been forced to cut field trips and transportation to athletic events and employees who used to work more than 30 hours total in two jobs who have been forced to give up one of their

jobs, thus hurting their financial security.

Several Maine municipalities have described to me the impact on their workers, particularly volunteer and oncall firefighters, emergency medical technicians, and employees of the parks and recreation and public works departments.

Although the IRS adopted regulations last year in an attempt to exclude volunteer firefighters from the calculation of the employer mandate, these regulations do not give our towns and cities the level of protection provided by the Forty Hours is Full Time Act.

In most Maine communities, the fire department is staffed by volunteers and oncall firefighters who typically have health care coverage through their regular day jobs. In fact, in Maine, oncall firefighters for our smaller communities often serve as full-time firefighters--receiving full health care benefits--in a neighboring community. They help the smaller towns by serving as on-call firefighters. Unfortunately, under ObamaCare it doesn't matter that these on-call firefighters already have health care coverage; the towns that employ them for more than 30 hours a week may still face the $2,000 penalty per on-call firefighter for doing so. This makes no sense whatsoever.

For example, one town in southern Maine has told me that the 30-hour rule will require it to offer health care coverage to more than a dozen volunteer and on-call firefighters who do not qualify for coverage from the town today. The cost of doing so will drive up that town's health care budget by 20 percent at a time when its budget is already stretched to the breaking point.

Another Maine community has employees who work part time but year- round performing various tasks, including plowing and salting the roads in the winter. These employees typically work 30 to 34 hours a week, and they do not qualify for health benefits under the town's plan. Since the town cannot afford to add them to its health care plan, it simply will have no choice but to cut their hours back to 29 hours a week. The town doesn't want to do that. The workers don't want to have their hours cut. As anyone who has lived in Maine or any Northern State can tell you, snowstorms do not keep to a schedule. Mother Nature seems not to have heard about the 30-hour workweek under ObamaCare. So it will be a challenge for this town to keep its roads safe, clear, and passable in the winter while making sure its part-time employees don't exceed 29 hours a week. So, once again, what is the result? Reduced hours, a smaller paycheck for part-time workers, and more costs for the town and more disruption in the services it provides.

Winters are long in Maine and summers are short. Towns have to manage their workers' schedules to match the season, but the 30-hour rule will make it very difficult for them to do so.

For example, one town in central Maine told me that a number of its employees work full time in its parks and recreations department in the summer, and then they work part time in the winter. Because of the 30- hour rule, however, this town won't be able to stagger the schedules of these employees in the winter the way it used to and will have to lay them off instead and then, adding insult to injury, pay them unemployment during the layoff period. So here we have a case where the law is actually going to force the town to lay off part-time employees who want to work. This makes no sense.

Part-time workers who are hired to help with snow removal are often shifted to other departments in the spring and summer months to assist full-time employees or to take their place when they are on vacation. But the 30-hour rule once again takes away the flexibility towns need to do this.

For example, one town in northern Maine has told me that the part- time workers it has relied upon to help cover vacation time for its firefighters in the summer months will have to be cut back to 29 hours a week because the town cannot afford to pay the $2,000 penalty it will face for each employee if they work their usual hours. Raising the threshold for full-time work to 40 hours a week would restore the flexibility this town needs to manage its workforce, give these part- time workers more hours and the bigger paychecks they need, and help full-time firefighters get a break after a long, tough winter.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for 1 more minute.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Today I have described just some of the damage the 30-hour rule is doing to municipal employees, to providers of home health care and hospice services, and to those who work in our school systems. Nationwide, 100 school systems have had to scale back the hours of their workers already. Employees in all industries--for-profit and non- profit, private sector and public sector--are similarly affected.

Regardless of the varying views of Senators in this Chamber on the Affordable Care Act, surely we ought to be able to agree to fix this problem in the law that is hurting workers' paychecks and creating chaos for employers. Senator Donnelly has introduced bipartisan legislation with Senator Joe Manchin and Senator Lisa Murkowski that would do just that. It is the Forty Hours is Full Time Act, and I urge all of my colleagues to join us in supporting it.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I further request that the time not be charged to either side on the debate on the Keystone pipeline, if that is necessary.

I asked unanimous consent to proceed for up to 15 minutes as in morning business, and since my remarks do not pertain to the debate for the Keystone Pipeline, that the time not be charged to either side in that debate.

Mr. President, it has been my privilege to serve on the Senate Special Committee on Aging since my very first days in the Senate, and I am honored to have been elected to chair this committee for the 114th Congress. I wish to welcome the Presiding Officer, Senator Cotton of Arkansas, to the committee. He will be a new member on our committee, and I believe he will enjoy his service as much as I have.

My service on the aging committee is particularly appropriate since Maine is the oldest State in the Nation by median age. Many people would guess that Florida would have that distinction, but, in fact, it is the great State of Maine.

Throughout its history, the aging committee has spurred Congress to action on issues that are important to older Americans through its hearings, its investigations, and its reports. This is the first time a Maine Senator has chaired the committee since the 1990s, when my predecessor, mentor, and friend, Senator Bill Cohen, served as chairman.

I wish to share with my colleagues today my priorities for the committee as we begin this new Congress. I have three major priorities for the committee's work: first, retirement security; second, investments in biomedical research targeting diseases that disproportionately affect older Americans, such as Alzheimer's and diabetes; and, third, protecting seniors against financial exploitation and scams.

I am increasingly concerned that our seniors will not have adequate savings and other financial resources during their retirement years. The committee will, therefore, focus on retirement security and, in particular, on the need to encourage more savings and better financial planning. According to the nonpartisan Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, there currently is an estimated $6.6 trillion gap between the savings Americans have today and what they should have in order to maintain their standard of living during retirement.

Nationally, one in four Americans has no source of income beyond Social Security. In the State of Maine, the number is one in three. Social Security provides an absolutely vital safety net. However, with an average benefit of just $16,000 a year, it certainly is not enough to finance a comfortable retirement for many Americans.

According to a Gallup survey published in 2012, more than half of all Americans are worried they will not be able to maintain their standard of living in retirement. That is up sharply from 34 percent two decades ago, and the Boston College analysis demonstrates that their concern is warranted.

There are many reasons for the decline in retirement security facing American seniors, including the demise of many defined benefit pension plans in the private sector; the severity of the recent financial crisis, which wiped out much of the net worth of many

seniors, at least temporarily; rising health care costs; the need for long-term care; and, most of all, the simple fact that Americans are living far longer than we used to. Many Americans reaching retirement age also have more debt than retirees of previous generations.

I remember when my parents paid off the mortgage on their home and had a mortgage-burning party. Well, today, people who are the age my parents were when they paid off their house are taking on new debt and new mortgages. We found in the aging committee that there are seniors who are still paying off their student loans or the student loans of their children. These are all issues I look forward to the committee exploring in depth in this new Congress.

Another priority will be highlighting the importance of biomedical research on diseases such as Alzheimer's and diabetes, which take such a devastating toll on older Americans and their families. Investments in biomedical research not only improve the health and longevity of Americans but also provide benefits to our economy and to the Federal budget.

For example, nearly one out of three Medicare dollars is spent treating people living with diabetes. According to multiple economic analyses, there is roughly a 2-to-1 return on investment in Federal support for biomedical research. This investment at the National Institutes of Health and at research centers across the country spur job creation and are critical to America's competitiveness in the global research environment.

As the Senate cochair of the Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease, I am particularly committed to helping to spur breakthroughs in Alzheimer's disease, which has had such a devastating impact on 5.2 million Americans and their families. In addition to the suffering it causes, Alzheimer's costs the United States an astonishing $214 billion a year. That includes $150 billion in costs to the Medicare and Medicaid programs. These costs will only skyrocket as the baby boom generation ages.

Fortunately, there is promising research that holds hope for Alzheimer's patients and their families. The research community is poised to make important advances through clinical trials and investigating new therapeutic targets. But adequate funding is critical to advance this research and to achieve these breakthroughs.

At a time when the United States is spending more than $200 billion a year for Alzheimer's patients, we are spending less than three-tenths of 1 percent of that amount--about $600 million a year--on research. Surely, we can do more for Alzheimer's, given its tremendous human and economic price.

The National Plan to Address Alzheimer's Disease has as its primary goal the prevention and effective treatment of Alzheimer's by the year 2025. To meet that goal, the chairman of the Federal Alzheimer's Advisory Council says that we need to devote $2 billion a year to Alzheimer's research. Well, think about that. That is only 1 percent-- in fact, it is less than 1 percent--of what we as a society are spending to care for people with Alzheimer's. That investment will lead to better treatments and ultimately to a means of prevention or even a cure for this awful and expensive disease.

The aging committee will also continue its focus on scams that target our seniors, such as the Jamaican lottery phone scam we exposed in the last Congress. This nefarious scheme, which is estimated to have cost Americans as much as $300 million a year, particularly targeted seniors in the Northeast. Some seniors in my State lost tens of thousands of dollars to the scam which involved a con artist calling a victim to tell him or her that they had won the Jamaican lottery but needed to pay fees to process the winnings. I don't need to tell my colleagues that these seniors had won nothing of the sort. But this was a very sophisticated scheme.

In addition to educating seniors to help them avoid becoming victims of such scams, the hearing resulted in the Jamaican Government passing new laws targeting the scammers and prompted Federal law enforcement to make several arrests. The aging committee will also continue its fraud hotline to help protect seniors from these kinds of scams and financial exploitation, and the phone number for that fraud hotline, which is toll-free, is 1-855-303-9470.

In addition to these three major priorities, it is my hope our committee in the second year will also take a close look--really scrutinize--Federal programs designed to help our seniors, such as those authorized by the Older Americans Act. We want to make sure these programs are as effective and efficient as possible and that their benefits reach those seniors as intended. So we will be performing that oversight function and sharing our findings with the committee of jurisdiction--the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee--on which I am also privileged to serve.

The Senate Special Committee on Aging has a long history and tradition of bipartisanship, and my work on this committee during the past Congress was particularly rewarding because of the strong partnership I forged with the committee chairman, the senior Senator from Florida, Bill Nelson. I look forward to continuing that bipartisan tradition with my good friend and close colleague, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, who will be serving as the committee's ranking member in the 114th Congress.

Finally, I encourage the Presiding Officer and all of the other members of the committee not only to be active participants in the committee but also to share with us their thoughts on issues that we should pursue.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor, and seeing no one seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today, Senator Donnelly and I are reintroducing the Forty Hours is Full-time Act to correct a serious flaw in the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, that is already causing workers to have their hours reduced and their pay cut. We are pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort by Senators Murkowski and Manchin. Our legislation would raise the threshold for ``full-time'' work in Obamacare to the standard 40 hours a week. This is consistent with the threshold for overtime eligibility under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the common-sense understanding of ``full- time'' work.

Under Obamacare, an employee working just 30 hours a week is defined as ``full-time,'' a definition that is completely out-of-step with standard employment practices in the U.S. today. According to a survey published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average American actually works 8.7 hours per day, which equates to roughly 44 hours a week. The Obamacare definition is nearly one-third lower than actual practice.

Similarly, the Obamacare definition of ``full-time'' employee is ten hours a week fewer than the 40 hours per week used by the GAO in its study of the budget and staffing required by the IRS to implement Obamacare. In that report, the GAO described a ``full-time equivalent'' as: ``a measure of staff hours equal to those of an employee who works 2,080 hours per year, or 40 hours per week. . . .'' Even the Office of Management and Budget recognizes that 30-hours is not ``full-time.'' A circular it issued to Federal agencies actually directs them to calculate staffing levels using more than 40 hours a week as a ``full- time equivalent.''

The effect of using the 30-hour a week threshold is to artificially drive-up the number of ``full-time'' workers for purposes of calculating the penalties to which employers are exposed under Obamacare. These penalties begin at $40,000 for businesses with 50 employees, plus $2,000 for each additional ``full-time equivalent'' employee. While these draconian penalities were scheduled to begin in January of last year, we have yet to feel their full effect because the Obama administration delayed their implementation through 2014, perhaps knowing the negative impact that will result. But that artificial grace-period expired January 1 for employers with 100 or more workers and will end for employers with between 50 and 99 employees in January of next year.

Needless to say, these penalties will force many employers to restrict or reduce the hours their employees are allowed to work, so they are no longer considered ``full-time'' for the purposes of the law. In addition, these penalties will discourage employers from growing or adding jobs, particularly those close to the 50-job trigger.

These are not hypothetical concerns. According to the Investors Business Daily, more than 450 employers had cut work hours or staffing levels in response to Obamacare as of September of last year. Employees of for-profit businesses are not the only ones threatened by Obamacare's illogical definition of full-time work. Public sector employees and those who work for non-profits are also affected.

I am concerned that educators, school employees, and students will be particularly hard hit. As the ASAA, the School Superintendents Association, explained in a letter in support of our bill, Obamacare's 30-hour threshold puts an ``undue burden on school systems across the Nation, many of [which] will struggle to staff their schools to meet their educational mission'' while complying with this requirement.

For example, the school superintendent of Bangor, ME, has told me that Obamacare will require that school district to reduce substitute teacher hours to make sure they don't exceed 29 hours a week. This will harm not only the substitute teachers who want and need more work, but it will also harm students by causing unnecessary disruption in the classroom.

Likewise, in Indiana, a county school district had to reduce the hours of part-time school bus drivers to make sure they do not work more than the 30-hour threshold. As a result, the school district has been forced to cut field trips and transportation to athletic events, and employees who used to work more than 30 hours total in two jobs have been forced to give up one of their jobs, hurting their financial security.

The 30-hour rule will also affect our Nation's institutions of higher education. According to the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources, Obamacare's full-time work definition has already caused 122 schools to announce new policies capping hours for students and faculty.

It is troubling that the 30-hour threshold will also harm delivery of home care services. The requirement will likely result in reduced access to needed services for some of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens: home-bound seniors, individuals with disabilities, and recently discharged hospital and nursing home patients. Information provided to my office by the Home Care & Hospice Alliance of Maine shows that many of its member organizations will be forced to reduce work hours for employees or even to cease operations due to Obamacare's definition of ``full-time'' work. If that happens, hundreds of home care workers could lose their jobs, and a thousand seniors could lose access to home care services--in Maine alone.

Data from Maine's Medicaid program show that home care services are extremely cost-effective compared to alternatives. Thus, by making it harder for home care service providers to give their workers the hours they need,

Obamacare's definition of ``full-time'' work will end up reducing the home care services available to seniors, depriving them of care or forcing them into costlier care, driving up Federal costs.

Before I close, I would like to read a few lines from a letter I recently received from Randy Wadleigh, the owner of a well-known and much-loved restaurant institution in Maine called ``Governor's.'' Randy's letter sums up what Maine employers have always told me--their employees are the heart and souls of their businesses, and are the face of their companies to the public. As Randy puts it, businesses recognize the importance of their workers ``because without GREAT employees, businesses really don't have anything. [The 30-hour threshold] is hurting many of our employees. They don't understand it, they can't afford it and they just want to work more hours.''

The bipartisan bill we are introducing today will protect these workers by changing the definition of ``full-time'' work in the ACA to 40 hours a week, and making a corresponding change in the definition of ``full-time equivalent'' employee to 174 hours per month. This is a sensible definition in keeping with actual practice.

Among the many organizations that have endorsed our bill are: the College & University Professional Association for Human Resources, the National Association for Home Care & Hospice, the American Hotel & Lodging Association, the American Staffing Association, the Asian American Hotel Owners Association, the Associated Builders and Contractors, the Food Marketing Institute, the International Franchise Association, the National Association of Convenience Stores, the National Association of Health Underwriters, the American Rental Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of Theatre Owners, the National Grocers Association, the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Restaurant Association, the National Retail Federation, the Retail Industry Leaders Association, ASAA, the School Superintendents Association, the Society for Human Resource Management, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Regardless of the varying views of Senators on the Affordable Care Act, surely we ought to be able to agree to fix this problem in the law that is hurting workers' paychecks and creating chaos for employers. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, Senator Donnelly and I are reintroducing the Forty Hours is Full-time Act to correct a serious flaw in the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, that is already causing workers to have their hours reduced and their pay cut. We are pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort by Senators Murkowski and Manchin. Our legislation would raise the threshold for ``full-time'' work in Obamacare to the standard 40 hours a week. This is consistent with the threshold for overtime eligibility under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the common-sense understanding of ``full- time'' work.

Under Obamacare, an employee working just 30 hours a week is defined as ``full-time,'' a definition that is completely out-of-step with standard employment practices in the U.S. today. According to a survey published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average American actually works 8.7 hours per day, which equates to roughly 44 hours a week. The Obamacare definition is nearly one-third lower than actual practice.

Similarly, the Obamacare definition of ``full-time'' employee is ten hours a week fewer than the 40 hours per week used by the GAO in its study of the budget and staffing required by the IRS to implement Obamacare. In that report, the GAO described a ``full-time equivalent'' as: ``a measure of staff hours equal to those of an employee who works 2,080 hours per year, or 40 hours per week. . . .'' Even the Office of Management and Budget recognizes that 30-hours is not ``full-time.'' A circular it issued to Federal agencies actually directs them to calculate staffing levels using more than 40 hours a week as a ``full- time equivalent.''

The effect of using the 30-hour a week threshold is to artificially drive-up the number of ``full-time'' workers for purposes of calculating the penalties to which employers are exposed under Obamacare. These penalties begin at $40,000 for businesses with 50 employees, plus $2,000 for each additional ``full-time equivalent'' employee. While these draconian penalities were scheduled to begin in January of last year, we have yet to feel their full effect because the Obama administration delayed their implementation through 2014, perhaps knowing the negative impact that will result. But that artificial grace-period expired January 1 for employers with 100 or more workers and will end for employers with between 50 and 99 employees in January of next year.

Needless to say, these penalties will force many employers to restrict or reduce the hours their employees are allowed to work, so they are no longer considered ``full-time'' for the purposes of the law. In addition, these penalties will discourage employers from growing or adding jobs, particularly those close to the 50-job trigger.

These are not hypothetical concerns. According to the Investors Business Daily, more than 450 employers had cut work hours or staffing levels in response to Obamacare as of September of last year. Employees of for-profit businesses are not the only ones threatened by Obamacare's illogical definition of full-time work. Public sector employees and those who work for non-profits are also affected.

I am concerned that educators, school employees, and students will be particularly hard hit. As the ASAA, the School Superintendents Association, explained in a letter in support of our bill, Obamacare's 30-hour threshold puts an ``undue burden on school systems across the Nation, many of [which] will struggle to staff their schools to meet their educational mission'' while complying with this requirement.

For example, the school superintendent of Bangor, ME, has told me that Obamacare will require that school district to reduce substitute teacher hours to make sure they don't exceed 29 hours a week. This will harm not only the substitute teachers who want and need more work, but it will also harm students by causing unnecessary disruption in the classroom.

Likewise, in Indiana, a county school district had to reduce the hours of part-time school bus drivers to make sure they do not work more than the 30-hour threshold. As a result, the school district has been forced to cut field trips and transportation to athletic events, and employees who used to work more than 30 hours total in two jobs have been forced to give up one of their jobs, hurting their financial security.

The 30-hour rule will also affect our Nation's institutions of higher education. According to the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources, Obamacare's full-time work definition has already caused 122 schools to announce new policies capping hours for students and faculty.

It is troubling that the 30-hour threshold will also harm delivery of home care services. The requirement will likely result in reduced access to needed services for some of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens: home-bound seniors, individuals with disabilities, and recently discharged hospital and nursing home patients. Information provided to my office by the Home Care & Hospice Alliance of Maine shows that many of its member organizations will be forced to reduce work hours for employees or even to cease operations due to Obamacare's definition of ``full-time'' work. If that happens, hundreds of home care workers could lose their jobs, and a thousand seniors could lose access to home care services--in Maine alone.

Data from Maine's Medicaid program show that home care services are extremely cost-effective compared to alternatives. Thus, by making it harder for home care service providers to give their workers the hours they need,

Obamacare's definition of ``full-time'' work will end up reducing the home care services available to seniors, depriving them of care or forcing them into costlier care, driving up Federal costs.

Before I close, I would like to read a few lines from a letter I recently received from Randy Wadleigh, the owner of a well-known and much-loved restaurant institution in Maine called ``Governor's.'' Randy's letter sums up what Maine employers have always told me--their employees are the heart and souls of their businesses, and are the face of their companies to the public. As Randy puts it, businesses recognize the importance of their workers ``because without GREAT employees, businesses really don't have anything. [The 30-hour threshold] is hurting many of our employees. They don't understand it, they can't afford it and they just want to work more hours.''

The bipartisan bill we are introducing today will protect these workers by changing the definition of ``full-time'' work in the ACA to 40 hours a week, and making a corresponding change in the definition of ``full-time equivalent'' employee to 174 hours per month. This is a sensible definition in keeping with actual practice.

Among the many organizations that have endorsed our bill are: the College & University Professional Association for Human Resources, the National Association for Home Care & Hospice, the American Hotel & Lodging Association, the American Staffing Association, the Asian American Hotel Owners Association, the Associated Builders and Contractors, the Food Marketing Institute, the International Franchise Association, the National Association of Convenience Stores, the National Association of Health Underwriters, the American Rental Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of Theatre Owners, the National Grocers Association, the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Restaurant Association, the National Retail Federation, the Retail Industry Leaders Association, ASAA, the School Superintendents Association, the Society for Human Resource Management, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Regardless of the varying views of Senators on the Affordable Care Act, surely we ought to be able to agree to fix this problem in the law that is hurting workers' paychecks and creating chaos for employers. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters of support be printed in the Record.

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

Madam President,

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, last week the Senate passed the National Women's History Museum Commission Act, a bill that I authored with the dean of the Democratic women Senators, Senator Mikulski of Maryland. It passed finally as part of the National Defense Authorization Act.

Our legislation will create a commission to evaluate and plan the establishment of a museum dedicated to women's history right here in our Nation's Capital. I know the Presiding Officer shares my view that this is long overdue.

I am in fact pleased to have had all of the women Senators as cosponsors of this bill, and I am thankful for the support of many of our other colleagues as well. Senator Mikulski has been a terrific co- leader, and I thank her for her leadership.

A women's history museum is long overdue in Washington, DC. Think of it. We actually have a museum dedicated to honoring buildings. We have museums along the mall that commemorate various aspects of our history. We have the Air and Space Museum. There is a privately run Spy Museum. There is the Newseum, which honors journalism. There is a museum that honors Native Americans. Americans from all over this country can come to Washington and learn about our history and the contributions of the people who have made our Nation the greatest country in the world. Despite the plethora of museums, however, there has been no museum dedicated to the women who have helped to shape our Nation's history.

The legislation that was finally approved last week calls for a commission to fund its own costs, and it would be paid for entirely with private funds at no cost to American taxpayers.

This commission would put forth a plan for establishing a museum on women's history so that people who are coming to Washington can learn about the enormous contributions of women to our Nation's history.

Indeed, American women have made invaluable contributions to our country across such diverse fields as government, business, medicine, law, literature, sports, entertainment, the arts, and the military. A museum dedicated to women's history will help ensure that future generations understand what it is we owe to the many American women who have helped to build, sustain, and advance our society.

Such a museum will share the stories of pioneering women such as abolitionist Harriet Tubman, the founder of the Girl Scouts, Juliette Gordon Low, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, astronaut Sally Ride, and my personal inspiration, Maine Senator Margaret Chase Smith.

I first introduced legislation to establish a museum for women's history in 2003. Early the following year, the Senate unanimously approved my bill. Unfortunately, that legislation was not taken up by the House and died.

In 2005, the Senate again approved the legislation, but it too stalled in the House. With the passage finally of this commission bill, the effort to establish a museum for women's history in our Nation's Capital takes a positive step forward.

This bill will convene a talented, diverse, and skilled panel of historians, educators, museum administrators, and other experts with experience in women's history to make recommendations for the creation and the sustainment of such a museum.

It is important to emphasize that this museum will portray all aspects of women's contributions to our history, without partisanship or bias. The only political statement we will be making is to correct the longstanding omission of the role of women in America's history.

I also recognize and thank Chairwoman Landrieu and Ranking Member Murkowski for their careful consideration of our bill by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which unanimously approved it last month.

Telling the history of the contributions of American women matters, and this bill takes a long overdue first step toward recognizing and honoring those who have shaped our shared American heritage. I look forward to the day when young girls and young boys visiting Washington will be able to visit a women's history museum to learn more about the remarkable contributions of American women to our Nation.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business.