Floor Statements

I wish to take a moment to introduce and thank our guest Chaplain today.

Dr. Calvin French is the pastor emeritus for the Community of Christ Church in Washington, DC, where he served that congregation for 30 years before retiring. He has served as a pastor for 60 years of his life, considerably more than, I would note, my 40 years in Congress.

Calvin French, Dr. French, is a native of Iowa. He holds degrees from the University of Iowa, Graceland College, and Drake University in addition to his graduate studies at Harvard and Princeton.

For the past 25 years he has represented the parent church of his denomination in governmental affairs, providing liaison service to the various agencies of the government as well as to Congress.

I personally have known Dr. French for going on almost 50 years now. When we first met in Iowa, his now deceased wife LaVon was a great friend of my wife's. They were lawyers together in Iowa. We were close family friends, and this brings back so many fond memories of our times together in Iowa and later on.

I would note that Dr. French's granddaughter Dr. Kelsey French is here in the gallery today with her husband Vince Bzdek, the news editor for the Washington Post. Their two children are also here today Zola and Xavier who is celebrating his birthday today. Xavey is 13 years old today, so he was able to be here to see his grandfather give the opening prayer of the Senate.

I also note that in 1975, when I first came to the House of Representatives, I invited Dr. French to give the opening prayer in the House. So now, almost 40 years later, I am privileged to have had him here to give the closing prayer before I retire from the Senate.

Dr. French, I would say, is someone I have admired for his commitment not only to his church but the broader commitment he has had to humanity, to all that he has done to infuse--and all around him--a spirit of kindness, generosity, and a spirit of understanding that while we may be different in so many ways, we are all the same in our humanity. He is one of the most wonderful human beings I have had the privilege of knowing and being with in my lifetime.

I say to my good friend, Dr. Calvin French, thank you. Thank you for all your pastoral work. Thank you for your leadership and your guidance through the past 50 years of my life.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I support the nomination of Charlotte Burrows to be a commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, and David Lopez to continue to serve as the agency's general counsel.

These are two eminently qualified nominees. Mr. Lopez is a dedicated public servant who has spent over two decades protecting people from workplace discrimination. He did an admirable job during his first term, and was responsible for marked improvements in both the agency's litigation program and in its outreach to stakeholders.

Ms. Burrows has also had a distinguished career in public service. She is currently Associate Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice, and previously served as general counsel for Civil and Constitutional Rights for Senator Kennedy and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. She is a leading expert in the field of discrimination law, and she has proven herself committed to public service.

Both of these nominees deserve to be confirmed by the Senate. And our Nation needs public servants of their caliber and experience at the EEOC, which has the critical mission of protecting working Americans from workplace discrimination.

Throughout my career I have been guided by the vision of an America that is compassionate, just, and inclusive--a society where the government provides a ladder, or sometimes a ramp--of opportunity that gives every American a fair shot at the American dream. However, that ladder cannot function properly if there are barriers of discrimination that unfairly limit opportunities for some Americans to fully participate in the social, political, and economic life of this Nation.

Over the last 50 years, we have made great strides towards eliminating discrimination in the workplace. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, sex, national origin and religion. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act, in 1967, prohibited discrimination on the basis of age. The Americans with Disabilities Act, in 1990, and the ADA Amendments Act, in 2008, prohibited discrimination on the basis of disability.

These important guarantees, however, are not self-enforcing. They are only as strong as the agency charged with enforcing them, the EEOC. The EEOC's mission is simple and profoundly important--to promote equality of opportunity in the workplace and enforce Federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.

While much progress has been made in recent decades, discrimination in the workplace continues to be all too common. Too many employment decisions are based on insidious stereotypes and prejudices rather than an employee's talent, ability, and qualifications. Too many hardworking Americans face the harsh reality of getting a pink slip or not being hired at all because of race, sex, national origin, religion, age, disability or some other irrelevant factor.

The realities are especially harsh for individuals with disabilities. Less than 30 percent of working-age Americans with disabilities participate in the workforce, and households with an adult member with a disability earn 38.4 percent less than households without an adult member who has a disability. These facts make it clear that people with disabilities are still encountering roadblocks, and that the ADA's goal of economic self-sufficiency is far from achieved.

The EEOC has an important role to play in combating discrimination and supporting employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities and for all Americans.

Unfortunately, today's EEOC faces enormous challenges. The agency has a substantial backlog of almost 71,000 cases. And it takes an average of 267 days to process a discrimination claim. The truth is that the EEOC suffers from chronic underfunding, and this underfunding has resulted in a significant reduction in full-time employees. Under this administration, the agency has made real progress moving investigations forward in a timely manner, but all too often justice delayed is justice denied.

American workers deserve better, especially in these times of economic turmoil, when discrimination often increases and workers who are victims of discrimination face even greater challenges. Now more than ever, we need strong leadership at the EEOC. The nominees are both extremely well-qualified and have a deep commitment to public service. They possess the extraordinary skills and experience that will help them advance the EEOC's mission and ensure proper enforcement of critically important laws.

Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have raised concerns that EEOC is too quick to bring lawsuits. That is just not the case. Litigation is a last resort for the agency, and represents less than 0.5 percent of all charges filed and only around 5 percent of charges where the commission has issued a cause finding.

The EEOC under this administration has made enormous strides in improving the conciliation process. In the last 3 years, the EEOC improved its conciliation results significantly with successful conciliations now at a rate of 41 percent of all cases that are conciliated, up from 31 percent in fiscal year 2011. It is important to remember that EEOC v. CRST, the case so often cited as evidence that the agency isn't doing enough in the conciliation process, was a case brought by a Bush administration-appointed general counsel.

My Republican colleagues also criticize the Commission for delegating the prosecution of routine cases to the general counsel. There is absolutely nothing inappropriate about that practice, and it should not be a controversial issue. It is a practical measure to make sure the Commissioners are focusing on the most important issues and have ample opportunity to deliberate on broader policy issues. That is why the EEOC's delegation policy has been carried forward across multiple administrations and has bipartisan support from both Republican and Democratic Commissioners.

Now, I think we can all agree that there have been some unacceptable instances where courts have required the EEOC to pay attorney's fees for a defendant. But those cases are rare and

need to be viewed in perspective. Out of the 1,045 lawsuits filed from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2013, there have only been seven in which fees have been assessed, and two of those are pending an appeal. Generally, the EEOC is prudent and successful in litigation, and the agency has won 11 out of 16 trials from fiscal year 2013 to the present.

I want to comment on another issue that came up at the HELP Committee hearing on these nominees--the EEOC's work with regard to wellness programs. I am a strong supporter of wellness programs, and I was intimately involved in drafting the section of the Affordable Care Act that encourages such programs. Recently, the EEOC has been involved in litigation involving wellness programs, and I think a lot of people are trying to cloud the issue here. The EEOC has never--never--taken the position that wellness programs are illegal. They are, however, investigating extreme cases where employers have allegedly forced their employees to participate in programs that require medical testing. That raises Americans with Disabilities Act issues, and the EEOC is right to look carefully at the issue. Plus, the agency has indicated that it intends to issue guidance next year to help employers and employees navigate the tricky legal issues.

One final point, none of the manufactured concerns coming from the other side of the aisle have anything to do with the ability of these two nominees to do the job for which they were nominated. No one has questioned their qualifications. Both Ms. Burrows and Mr. Lopez are eminently qualified. Some of my Republican colleagues just do not like the fact that the EEOC is doing its job and enforcing our Nation's civil rights laws. That is a shame because civil rights should not be a partisan issue. We should all be coming together to support the agency and the important role it plays in making fairer, more equal workplaces.

I urge my colleagues to support both of these distinguished nominees and confirm them quickly so they can get to work ensuring fairness and equal opportunity for every American worker.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I thank my friend and colleague from Connecticut for his very excellent, profound statement and for taking a leadership position on this very crucial issue.

It is obviously well known I am retiring in 3 weeks. The Prevention and Public Health Fund of which the Senator spoke so eloquently just now is going to continue, and it is going to need people such as the Senator from the State of Connecticut to take that kind of leadership position.

I believe people are catching on to it around the country, but there are still those who say: People get high blood pressure, they get borderline diabetes, they have high cholesterol. These things just sort of happen--sort of like they are preordained.

Chronic diseases are not preordained. As the Senator said, 75 percent of the money we spent was accountable for preventable chronic diseases and conditions. As the Senator so rightly said, what we need to focus on is keeping people healthy, not paying for it later on when they are in the hospital. That is something that this Prevention and Public Health Fund is making strides on.

People have perhaps a mistaken idea that health care only occurs in the doctor's office or in the exchange between doctor and patient or health care provider and patient. But we know that

it takes place in all aspects of life--in the workplace, in the communities in which we live, in our schools, in our homes. It has to be something that is sort of pervasive in our society.

I say to my friend from Connecticut that I have often said in America it is easy to be unhealthy and hard to be healthy. It seems to me that ought to be turned around. It ought to be easy to be healthy and harder to be unhealthy. That means the simple things in life, such as kids walking to school. If they have a school in their neighborhood, they should be able to walk to school and back. I often talk about when my kids went to school here in Virginia when we moved here from Iowa many years ago. We had a high school 1 mile from our house, but the kids couldn't walk to school. Why? There was no sidewalk. It was a busy street, but there was no sidewalk. Simple things like that.

Things such as the Senator mentioned, making sure people get their checkups every year. The prevention fund does that. It makes sure of that. The money we put in the Affordable Care Act provides for annual checkups and vaccinations for people with no copays and no deductibles. I am told that now over 100 million people have taken advantage of that in this country--no copays, no deductibles. They can go in for a free check and get their cholesterol checked, a blood pressure screening, and all that done on an annual basis.

We also have to be cognizant that our kids need to have better physical opportunities at school and better food at school. With the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 we started to change the way we provide foods for our kids--healthy foods, free and fresh fruits and vegetables in schools all over America. These are the things that make it easier to be healthy--easier to be healthy.

There are the quitlines the Senator spoke about, which have been enormously successful, and the ``Tips from Former Smokers.'' We have the data on that from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. So we know they are working.

So again, I wish to thank the Senator for his focus on this and wish him well in the future in being sort of the champion on this because there are a lot of pulls around this place. I think everyone here would say: Yes, I am for health care; I am for keeping people healthy. We all get that. But there are so many pulls around here on how to appropriate money and what we do that sometimes this gets lost in the shuffle. So I am encouraged and pleased the distinguished Senator from Connecticut will be focused on this Prevention and Public Health Fund. It is making changes all over this country in profound ways--in profound ways--and in our communities.

Our communities are now getting together. I say to the Presiding Officer, the communities in Maine are now getting together and thinking about what they can do as a community to provide for more healthy activities and encouragement for people in their communities, and they are getting grants from the Prevention and Public Health Fund to do just that. Communities all over America are beginning to think about this and taking action.

It is simple things sometimes. A small community in Iowa--a very small town--had a retirement home for the elderly, but they didn't have anyplace for the elderly to exercise. So they built a walking path. They put park benches along the way and a couple of little shelters so they could come right out the door and walk. I don't know how far it is--maybe a mile or two. So it is just simple things like that. Before they had no place to go at all to get that kind of exercise.

So again, this Prevention and Public Health Fund, I hope, will remain a priority, and I hope the Senator from Connecticut will continue his great leadership in this area. I thank him for that and for his excellent statement. If on the outside I can ever be of help in any way, let me know. But I know it is in good hands with the Senator from Connecticut.

I yield the floor.

If my friend will yield, I think that is absolutely true. First of all, it is true that a lot of times low-income people don't have access to a more healthy environment. The food deserts we call them in our inner cities, where they do not get the fresh fruits and vegetables and items like that. That has to be addressed also, making it easier for them to be healthy. Again, it is an awareness.

I would say to my friend one other thing, and I hope my friend will take a look at what is now undergoing a trial period. It is something that was put in the last farm bill as a trial period for food stamp recipients--people who are on what they call food stamps, which are not food stamps anymore, as the Senator knows--to provide incentives for low-income people, people who use food stamps, to purchase more fruits and vegetables rather than just starches, fats, and sugars. That project is ongoing now. So I would say to the Senator that perhaps next year he might want to take a look at that with the Secretary of Agriculture and see how that project is doing.

Again, this is just a trial, an experiment, to see what we can do to incentivize people who are on food stamps to use them more for more healthy foods. But it is that lack of awareness. The Senator is absolutely correct.

I thank my friend. I remember Dr. Andrew Weil, who is very well known in this country and a good friend of mine, once made the statement sometime ago in a hearing that the default state of the human body is to be healthy. The body wants to be healthy. After all these millennia of changes, the body wants to be healthy. The problem is we put all these obstacles in the way.

I think that is true of people. People want to be healthy. They may not know that some of their lifestyle choices, some of what they do is provoking their illnesses. So I think it is our job to make people more aware of that and to help to provide some assistance, to provide some incentives for them to have a more healthy lifestyle.

I say to my friend from Connecticut, people will be here, I hope, for the next highway bill. We haven't been able to get one for a long time. I was here for the last one. I had an amendment I thought was going to pass. It was simply this: Any time Federal funds are involved in communities for streets or roads or highways or bridges or whatever, there must be incorporated in the plan provisions for walkways or bike paths along the side. I didn't say they had to build them. I just said they had to be put in the plans.

They are doing that in Europe, by the way. Every road, every street built has a walkway or a bike path--both for walking or biking.

Someone here objected to it, and we didn't get it. But I still think that would be something, again, to make people more aware. If they are incorporated in the plans, they might see it doesn't cost that much more to add it on to a road or bridge or whatever--the streets we are building in this country. Again, it makes it easier for people to be healthy--just a little thing like that. So I hope the Senator would take a look at that the next time the highway bill comes up.

I thank the Senator for his kindness.

Mr. President, I see my friend from Tennessee here on the floor, but I want to take a few minutes on another subject.

Today, December 3, is International Disability Rights Day-- International Disability Rights Day. It is observed around the globe as a day to think about, consider, and support more fully inclusion of people with disabilities in all aspects of our societies, to provide the support and the accommodations for people with disabilities to get a good education, to get employment, and to be able to enjoy all aspects of life with their families and their friends in all societies around the world.

This date commemorates this fight for equality and opportunity and access for people with disabilities all around the globe. In 150 countries and the European Union, they have ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, a day to celebrate a future of increased opportunities and inclusion for people with disabilities.

I am proud of the fact that we in America have been the leader in the world on disability rights and inclusion. Beginning with IDEA--the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--and followed up by the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008, we helped set the framework for equal opportunity and full participation for individuals with disabilities. Most of the world now shares those principles, and they have shown their support by signing onto this treaty--this convention. But there is a difference between signing on to principles and implementing them.

By ratifying the CRPD, as it is known--the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities--we can play an important role in helping other countries actually implement that treaty, that convention, those principles.

Under our system of government, the President of the United States has already signed for the United States on this treaty, but under our system of government, under our Constitution, that must be ratified by a vote in the Senate, a vote requiring two-thirds of those present and voting--not two-thirds of the Senate, two-thirds of those present and voting. That is what it says in the Constitution.

As we all know, 2 years ago this month we brought this treaty up for a vote in the Senate, and it failed by six votes. I think at that time there was a lot of misinformation about it. But under our system, it had to go back to the White House, it having died that Congress. It came back this Congress under the great leadership of Senator Menendez. We had further hearings on it. The bill was reported out of the Foreign Relations Committee this summer. Yet we cannot bring it to the floor because of some objections by a few on the Republican side--not every Republican, just a few.

I always want to point out that we had courageous Republicans supporting this. Ever since the adoption of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Senator McCain has been a stalwart supporter of the rights of people with disabilities. Senator Barrasso from Wyoming, Senator Kirk from Illinois, Senator Ayotte from New Hampshire, Senator Murkowski of Alaska, and Senator Collins from Maine have all been supporters. That is as it should be. Disability policy has never been a partisan issue. In this body, in the 30 years I have served here, it has never been a partisan issue.

I am sorry the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities seems to be caught up in some kind of partisanship, and that shouldn't be. I was hoping we might bring it up for another vote before we left. I asked consent to do so, and it was objected to by the junior Senator from Utah at that time. So this Congress will adjourn once again without ratifying this convention.

Last evening I was privileged to share an honor by the U.S. International Council on Disabilities with Professor Patrick Quinn, a citizen of Ireland, who was very instrumental in drafting the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities at the United Nations. He pointed out that much of what they did was based on the Americans with Disabilities Act and that it would send a bad signal around the world if we aren't going to join with the community of nations in helping them implement the principles. As I said, we can sign on to the principles, but implementing them is quite another story. That is where we can be very helpful.

Some people say that we can do that on our own, that we don't need to be a part of this treaty. But we don't have the wherewithal to go to every country and do that. We don't have that many personnel. We have budget constraints too. But if we join with other nations--and there are other nations that are very good at implementing disability policy, both in the European Union--and I might mention that great nation of Ireland. They have been very good at implementing disability policies. We could work with other countries, and when we go to other countries to help them implement these principles so that people with disabilities can have a fair place in their societies, an equal place in their societies, it is better if we speak a common language--not the United States going in and telling them ``Here is what you should do'' but go into a country with other nations and say ``Here is what we do. Here is what we do together. Here is what we can do to help you implement the principles on which you signed the treaty.'' It is a shame we can't ratify it.

Again I point out, as I have many times, that it has broad support in our society. Think about this. We have a measure coming before the Senate--that doesn't go before the House, just the Senate. We have a measure that is supported by the following: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce--Tom Donahue has been a stalwart supporter of this from the very beginning. We have the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Business Roundtable, led by a former Republican Governor of Michigan, John Engler, came out in strong support of this. The veterans groups all support this. We have all of the faith-based groups. In fact, on November 10 of this year, we received a letter from the National Association of Evangelicals supporting this treaty. The high-tech industries. All of the disability groups without exception support this.

I must also mention that one of the strong supporters who has poured his heart into trying to get this adopted is our former majority leader of the Senate, Bob Dole. I would also point out that every former Republican leader of the Senate supports this treaty--Bob Dole, Trent Lott, and Bill Frist. Every former President of the United States, from Jimmy Carter, to George H.W. Bush, to President Clinton, President George W. Bush, and President Obama--all support this. So we would think this would be a slam dunk, but there are a few who have blocked this from coming up. Over 800 disability, civil rights, and faith groups, 20 top veterans organizations, and I mentioned the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable--all support this.

It is sad that on this International Disability Rights Day, I am sad to say, it looks as though the clock is running out and we will not even vote again on it this year, let alone adopt it.

Next year I will not be here. I am retiring next year. My friends on the Republican side will take over the Senate. I hope they will pick up on this and take this treaty--move it through their committee and bring it out on the floor. It should not be a partisan issue. If there are some things that need to be done with the reservations, understandings, and declarations, fine. There were some changes made this last time to accommodate the concerns

of people who were concerned about homeschooling. There is a whole new thing that was put in there on homeschooling.

I am hopeful we will continue our efforts to pass this and to become a part of this international effort.

People wonder: The United States--we are so good on disability policy, we can help people with disabilities all around the globe. I can't say how many times I have had people who have talked to me in the past, young people who are students in universities who got some kind of a grant to go overseas to study but can't do it because of accessibility issues in other countries. They just can't get around. They can't find adequate housing. So it is still part of discrimination globally, and, again, we should be a part of it.

So I take the floor on this International Disability Rights Day to ask that this Senate in the future take up the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ratify it, and let's become a part of the international effort to work with every other country in the world to implement the kinds of policies we have in this country that provide equal opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency to people with disabilities--the four great goals of the Americans with Disabilities Act. We can do this, we should do it, and we should do it with our friends around the globe.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator from Tennessee yield?

I thank the Senator for those kind remarks. Let me say again what a pleasure it has been to work with the Senator from Tennessee for the last few years. In the last couple of years, we brought a lot of meaningful legislation through our committee, signed by the President. In fact, as my friend from Tennessee pointed out, we had 21 bills through our committee signed by the President--the most productive committee I think in the entire Congress; I know in the Senate.

So as I retire, the Senator from Tennessee, I hope, will be taking over the HELP Committee, and it will be in good hands. The Senator is a person of good will and good heart and good mind. After all, he has all the background needed--former president of the University of Tennessee, former Secretary of Education, former Governor, and, of course, U.S. Senator. So the HELP Committee will be in good hands with the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. Presidet, this morning we convened a hearing to consider the President's nomination of Lauren McFerran to fill an impending vacancy on the National Labor Relations Board. Ms. McFerran is well known to most of us as a senior staffer on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and I look forward to her speedy confirmation. She has been nominated to fill a vacancy that will result from the departure next month of a current Board member, Nancy Schiffer. I would like to thank Ms. Schiffer for her dedicated service. She has been a highly respected Board member, and I wish her every success in her future endeavors.

The National Labor Relations Board is an agency that is absolutely critical to our country, to our economy, and to our middle class. Over 75 years ago, Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act, guaranteeing American workers the right to form and join a union and bargain for a better life. The act sets forth a national policy to encourage collective bargaining. Specifically, the act states:

It is declared to be the policy of the United States to

eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to

the free flow of commerce and to mitigate and eliminate these

obstructions when they have occurred by encouraging the

practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by

protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of

association, self-organization, and designation of

representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of

negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or

other mutual aid or protection.

For union and nonunion workers alike, the act provides essential protections. It gives workers a voice in the workplace, allowing them to join together and speak up for fair wages and benefits, and for safe working conditions. These rights ensure that the people who do the real work in this country have a shot at receiving a fair share of the benefits when our economy grows--and with rising income inequality in our country, these rights are more important than ever.

The NLRB is the guardian of these fundamental rights. Workers themselves cannot enforce the NLRA, but they can turn to the Board if they have been denied the basic protections provided under the law. In short, the Board plays a vital role in vindicating workers' rights. In the past 10 years, the NLRB has secured opportunities for reinstatement for 22,544 employees who were unjustly fired. It has recovered more than $1 billion on behalf of workers whose rights were violated.

The Board also provides relief and remedies to our Nation's employers. For example, employers can turn to the Board for relief if a union commences a wildcat strike or refuses to bargain in good faith during negotiations. The NLRB has a long history of helping businesses resolve disputes efficiently. By preventing or resolving labor disputes that could disrupt our economy, the work that the Board does is vital to every worker and every business across the Nation.

That is why it is so important that we maintain a fully functional, five-member NLRB. I am proud of the fact that, just a little over a year ago, we were able to confirm members to completely fill the board for the first time in over a decade. Now, we need to fill a soon-to-be open seat so that the Board can continue to function effectively.

Ms. McFerran is not the first nominee for this seat. In September, the HELP Committee approved the nomination of a dedicated public servant, Sharon Block. Republicans and Democrats agreed on Ms. Block's reputation and qualifications, but her nomination was withdrawn in the face of circumstance beyond her control. As a result, Ms. Block will not have the opportunity to serve on the Board. Ms. Block is a tremendous public servant whose qualifications are unaffected and undiminished by the present circumstances and I look forward to Ms. Block's future service to our country.

I am heartened, however, by the President's decision to nominate Lauren McFerran. Ms. McFerran currently serves as Chief Labor Counsel and Deputy Staff Director on my HELP committee. I am proud to have her as a member of my staff; she has served the committee with excellence and

great professionalism; and I know firsthand that the President could not have found a more able successor to Ms. Schiffer. Ms. McFerran is an incredibly talented lawyer with deep knowledge of labor law. She is a person of sterling integrity and strong character. She will be a great asset to the Board.

It is my hope that by promptly confirming Ms. McFerran's nomination to fill the looming vacancy we can continue the progress that has been made recently, and begin a new era where orderly transitions on the NLRB are the norm. We should set a new precedent of confirming nominees--Democratic and Republican alike--in a timely manner.

I have no doubt that Ms. McFerran will do an excellent job in this important position. I look forward to moving her nomination expeditiously.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute and to extend my thanks to an extraordinary individual, Jenelle Krishnamoorthy, who has served on my staff, with one small interruption of service, for a decade.

Jenelle came to my staff in the summer of 2003 as a fellow, later becoming a permanent staff member and eventually rising to lead my health policy team on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. From the time she arrived, it was clear that Jenelle was an exceptional talent--one possessing not just deep knowledge of health care and public health, but also with uncommon instincts about this institution and about how to accomplish great things in an increasingly divided Congress.

Throughout my career, I have been guided by a conviction that our country does not have a health care system, but rather a sick care system. If you get sick, you get care. We spend far too much time and riches treating disease once it has occurred, and far too little preventing it in the first place. Among my first charges to Jenelle when she arrived on staff was to think about how we make America a wellness society, one in which we make the healthy choice the easy choice. How do we, I asked her, change our workplaces, our schools, our communities, our child care settings, and our health care system so that we prevent the onset of chronic disease, rather than patch and fix and treat once a person gets sick?

Jenelle responded with a broad vision of a wellness society--a vision that has guided her work, and my own, for the past 10 years. Looking back over those 10 years, the breadth of what she has accomplished is truly remarkable.

The Affordable Care Act is one of the great health laws of the last 75 years. As my designee on that bill, Jenelle secured passage of a number of groundbreaking policy changes that have changed the landscape of our health care system. In particular, Jenelle was the primary drafter of the prevention title of that bill. As a result of that, every single American can now receive recommended preventive health care services absolutely free of charge. Routine services such as mammograms, vaccinations, diabetes and cancer screenings, among other things, are now cost free, forever, because of Jenelle's work.

As part of that bill, Jenelle was also the intellectual force behind the Prevention Fund, which creates a public health partnership between the Federal Government and communities across the country by providing billions of dollars for communities to invest in proven preventive efforts such as tobacco cessation, childhood obesity prevention, HIV prevention, and public health workforce development. As a result, across the country, communities, from small towns in Iowa to our largest urban centers, are working together to weave health promotion into the very fabric of our communities and the lives of our citizens.

Through her work on the Affordable Care Act, Jenelle also played a key role in expanding nutrition labeling to chain restaurants around the country, giving hundreds of millions of consumers access to critical nutrition information that they need to take control of their own health, and also successfully fought for new policies to promote breastfeeding.

Jenelle's contributions to the health of our country go far beyond the Affordable Care Act. As the health policy director for the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Jenelle shepherded passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act, the most significant reform of our food safety system in the country in decades. This law strengthened the Food and Drug Administration with critical new authorities to protect Americans by establishing a better and more modern system for keeping our food safe from farm to fork.

And just as she did with the food safety system, Jenelle also spearheaded efforts to improve the safety and quality of drugs and medical devices. In successfully leading committee passage of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, Jenelle helped ensure the safety of our drugs and medical devices, alleviate the effects of drugs shortages and manufacturing problems, and implemented long sought reform to help bring critical drugs and medical devices to patients faster.

Remarkably, these are just the highlights of Jenelle's accomplishments in the area of health policy and health promotion. Just in this Congress, Jenelle has led 16 bills into law, including bills to respond more quickly and effectively to public health disasters, to facilitate organ donation, to provide equitable funding to children's hospitals and ensure a steady supply of pediatric doctors, and to speed the approval of new sunscreens to protect Americans from skin cancer. Her efforts in the health arena in this Congress have made the HELP Committee one of the most productive in this Congress. For making me look good as the Chairman of the HELP Committee, I owe Jenelle a special debt of gratitude.

Americans take for granted the safety of our food supply and our drugs and medical equipment. When people go to their doctors and receive a free, often lifesaving mammogram, they do not

think of the reasons for it. When a smoker of several decades finally receives the help that he needs to quit so that he can watch his grandchildren grow up, he most likely does not pause to reflect on why he received free cessation services. But none of these things happened accidentally. They came to pass because of the heroic and humble efforts of a dedicated public servant, Jenelle Krishnamoorthy. For 10 years now, Jenelle has shown up for work in my office with the singular goal of improving the health of Americans. She has succeeded beyond measure. For that, I owe her my thanks, and so too do tens of millions of Americans.

Mr. President, I am proud to introduce my comprehensive proposal to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, the main law governing institutions of higher education in this country. My bill, the Higher Education Affordability Act, is the product of extensive conversations between both parties in Congress and stakeholders across the higher education community. Over the past year, our Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has held 12 bipartisan hearings on reauthorizing the Higher Education Act on issues ranging from teacher preparation and accreditation to federal student loans and the States' role in higher education. These hearings were purposely designed to better inform members of Congress and the public on the most pressing issues in higher education and how best to address them at the federal level.

In June, I put forward a discussion draft that included many of the ideas and policies discussed in our hearings. I asked the entire higher education community--including institutions, accreditors, and student advocacy organizations--to weigh in and offer suggestions on how best to strengthen my initial proposal.

I am pleased to say they delivered abundantly on that request. We received comments from over 120 organizations from across the country. What I have put forward today is a direct result of our hearings and the feedback we received. This bill provides clear guidelines based on all the work we have done to date on how we should move forward with reauthorization in a way that puts students and families first. It takes a holistic approach in addressing the most urgent issues in higher education: increasing college affordability, helping struggling borrowers, strengthening accountability, and improving transparency throughout the higher education system.

On the matter of affordability, my bill includes a number of policies designed to reduce college costs for students on the front end. It proposes a new federal partnership with States to incentivize them to reinvest in their systems of higher education. For too long, States have been cutting funding for their institutions of higher education and passing those costs onto students and their families. This is a trend in cost-shifting that must stop. The bill also reinstates year- round Pell Grants to enable students to get their degrees faster and establishes a pilot program to reward institutions that do a good job of graduating low-income students. My bill also creates two grant programs to promote statewide and institutional innovation in higher education. Making sure college is affordable requires an all-hands-on- deck approach: the Federal government, states, students and their families all need to do their part.

We also hope to empower students and families through greater transparency by giving students and families better information on college costs and outcomes from the beginning of the college selection process and all the way through graduation. The bill promotes a seamless process from high school to post-graduation to ensure that students know exactly what they are getting into with regard to college quality and costs before they get started.

On the matter of student debt, my bill takes a range of steps to help student borrowers better manage their loans. It provides for better up- front and exit counseling for students regarding their federally guaranteed loans. It eliminates fees on federal loans to save students money. My bill also strengthens consumer protections for student loans, and it creates a safety net for borrowers who are seriously delinquent on their loans by automatically enrolling them in an income-based repayment plan with affordable monthly payments. To ensure that private student debt is treated no differently than any other consumer debt, my bill would allow private student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy, as they were before the law was changed in 2005.

My bill would hold schools more accountable to both students and taxpayers by ensuring that no Federal money goes to marketing and advertising instead of education. I am also introducing new metrics, including a repayment rate, by which to better measure schools' performance. The bill also changes the current ``90/10'' rule to ``85/ 15'' to ensure that for-profit schools are not wholly subsidized by the Federal government. For those bad actors making record-breaking profits through fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars, my bill includes a number of provisions designed to penalize this behavior and to stop it.

Our country has reached a critical point in higher education. Beyond disagreements on specific policy issues, we must come together to decide whether higher education should be preserved, first and foremost, as a public good. Over the past two decades, rising college costs have been shifted unfairly onto the backs of students and families. The central question we must ask is whether this accelerating trend is the right direction for this country--whether paying for college should be the sole responsibility of students and families or our shared responsibility as a nation. My bill reflects the overall belief that all stakeholders--states, the Federal Government, students and families--should invest together in higher education to keep college affordable and accessible to all. Our country's economic future and the promise of equal opportunity depend upon this critical investment.

It is unacceptable to ask students and their families to shoulder the bulk of college costs. Historically, this has never been the case, and we should not allow this unfortunate trend to grow worse. My bill would get us back on the right track, ensuring that our higher education system is affordable, transparent, and ultimately accountable to our students and taxpayers. Higher education should serve as an equalizer of opportunity for all, and that is a promise that we must fulfill together.

Mr. President, I am proud to introduce my comprehensive proposal to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, the main law governing institutions of higher education in this country. My bill, the Higher Education Affordability Act, is the product of extensive conversations between both parties in Congress and stakeholders across the higher education community. Over the past year, our Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has held 12 bipartisan hearings on reauthorizing the Higher Education Act on issues ranging from teacher preparation and accreditation to federal student loans and the States' role in higher education. These hearings were purposely designed to better inform members of Congress and the public on the most pressing issues in higher education and how best to address them at the federal level.

In June, I put forward a discussion draft that included many of the ideas and policies discussed in our hearings. I asked the entire higher education community--including institutions, accreditors, and student advocacy organizations--to weigh in and offer suggestions on how best to strengthen my initial proposal.

I am pleased to say they delivered abundantly on that request. We received comments from over 120 organizations from across the country. What I have put forward today is a direct result of our hearings and the feedback we received. This bill provides clear guidelines based on all the work we have done to date on how we should move forward with reauthorization in a way that puts students and families first. It takes a holistic approach in addressing the most urgent issues in higher education: increasing college affordability, helping struggling borrowers, strengthening accountability, and improving transparency throughout the higher education system.

On the matter of affordability, my bill includes a number of policies designed to reduce college costs for students on the front end. It proposes a new federal partnership with States to incentivize them to reinvest in their systems of higher education. For too long, States have been cutting funding for their institutions of higher education and passing those costs onto students and their families. This is a trend in cost-shifting that must stop. The bill also reinstates year- round Pell Grants to enable students to get their degrees faster and establishes a pilot program to reward institutions that do a good job of graduating low-income students. My bill also creates two grant programs to promote statewide and institutional innovation in higher education. Making sure college is affordable requires an all-hands-on- deck approach: the Federal government, states, students and their families all need to do their part.

We also hope to empower students and families through greater transparency by giving students and families better information on college costs and outcomes from the beginning of the college selection process and all the way through graduation. The bill promotes a seamless process from high school to post-graduation to ensure that students know exactly what they are getting into with regard to college quality and costs before they get started.

On the matter of student debt, my bill takes a range of steps to help student borrowers better manage their loans. It provides for better up- front and exit counseling for students regarding their federally guaranteed loans. It eliminates fees on federal loans to save students money. My bill also strengthens consumer protections for student loans, and it creates a safety net for borrowers who are seriously delinquent on their loans by automatically enrolling them in an income-based repayment plan with affordable monthly payments. To ensure that private student debt is treated no differently than any other consumer debt, my bill would allow private student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy, as they were before the law was changed in 2005.

My bill would hold schools more accountable to both students and taxpayers by ensuring that no Federal money goes to marketing and advertising instead of education. I am also introducing new metrics, including a repayment rate, by which to better measure schools' performance. The bill also changes the current ``90/10'' rule to ``85/ 15'' to ensure that for-profit schools are not wholly subsidized by the Federal government. For those bad actors making record-breaking profits through fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars, my bill includes a number of provisions designed to penalize this behavior and to stop it.

Our country has reached a critical point in higher education. Beyond disagreements on specific policy issues, we must come together to decide whether higher education should be preserved, first and foremost, as a public good. Over the past two decades, rising college costs have been shifted unfairly onto the backs of students and families. The central question we must ask is whether this accelerating trend is the right direction for this country--whether paying for college should be the sole responsibility of students and families or our shared responsibility as a nation. My bill reflects the overall belief that all stakeholders--states, the Federal Government, students and families--should invest together in higher education to keep college affordable and accessible to all. Our country's economic future and the promise of equal opportunity depend upon this critical investment.

It is unacceptable to ask students and their families to shoulder the bulk of college costs. Historically, this has never been the case, and we should not allow this unfortunate trend to grow worse. My bill would get us back on the right track, ensuring that our higher education system is affordable, transparent, and ultimately accountable to our students and taxpayers. Higher education should serve as an equalizer of opportunity for all, and that is a promise that we must fulfill together.

Mr. President, first let me thank my friend and colleague for his lifetime characteristic which is being very gracious and very generous in his remarks.

Chuck Grassley and I have served together since 1974. I like to tell people that in 1974, that was a big wave of Democrats who came in. They called us the Watergate babies. We came in a big wave, won a lot of elections. In fact in Iowa that year they elected a Democratic U.S. Senator and every House seat--I think there were six at that time--six House seats all went Democratic except one, and that was the seat that Chuck Grassley won that year, bucking the trend--the tide--in 1974.

So it is kind of a funny thing, Chuck,--I speak to my friend across the aisle here--that a lot of times people, this year, have said, ``All you Watergate babies are gone now, you and Max Baucus, and Chris Dodd and on the House side George Miller and Henry Waxman. So this is the last of the Watergate babies.''

I said, ``No, there is one left.''

``Well, who is that,'' they say.

I say, ``It is a Republican.''

``A Republican? Who is that?''

I say, ``My colleague from Iowa, Chuck Grassley, is sort of, shall I say, the last man standing from that class of 1974.''

Again, it is a tribute to Senator Grassley that through all these years he has won the hearts and minds of the people of Iowa, been elected and reelected. Of course he came to the Senate before I did. He came in 1981 and I came in 1984. So I like to think we at least share in common bucking the trend a little bit--the tide--because in 1984 someone said, ``Harkin ought to run for the Senate in 1984 because there will be a big Democratic landslide,'' and so I ran. The tide was just the opposite. There was a Reagan landslide here. But I was fortunate enough to win the election. So I think the two of us share the bucking of the tide, so to speak, getting into office when we ran. But it has been a great association all these years.

As I stand here today on my 75th birthday, I guess when you are this age, I think I have two kinds of emotions. One, I wonder where the heck did all the years go and how did they go by so fast. And sometimes I say, gosh, sometimes I wish I could turn the clock back and do it all again. The other emotion is sort of my Irish side of me. The Irish have a saying that any time you are on this side of the grass is a good day. So I am sure happy that I made it this far.

I again want to say that since the time we took our oath of office on January 4, 1975, we have served together both in the House and in the Senate. A lot of the time we were on the same committee, the agriculture committee, working on a lot of different agriculture bills. I remember back in the 1980s working on the credit bill at that time when so many farmers were underwater. As the Senator said, it has been a great honor and a privilege to represent the people of Iowa.

As he mentioned, we belong to different parties, we have different philosophies of approach in government, but I like to think we share a commonsense Iowa way of looking at the world. We are not monolithic out in Iowa. We are not all one philosophy or all the other philosophy. Sometimes I find very conservative friends of mine and I may have a liberal view of one thing and I find liberals and I may have a more conservative view of something else. So the people of Iowa, as my friend has said, think a lot about these things, and they take these things into consideration.

My friend has said, well, a lot of people say how can Iowans elect someone who is conservative and someone who is liberal. I think that is because there are common strains of that wave itself to the people of Iowa in so many ways where there is a cross of conflicts of maybe a conservative approach and a liberal approach.

I say to my friend, I value his friendship and his counsel through all these years, even though, again, as my friend said, we approach things maybe from a different philosophical standpoint. That is fine. That is okay. But we have never let a disagreement on philosophy ever be the last word between us or the final word or anything like that. It is always, well, that is that. What is next? And the one thing I really appreciate that my friend said is that when it comes to Iowa, you don't find any daylight when it comes to a disaster on what we can do for Iowa and Iowans. We have had a wonderful relationship through all these years and it is one that I have cherished very much.

I heard my friend, in making some notes, say that sometimes they say he is a cold-hearted conservative and I am a bleeding-heart liberal. I am going to set the record straight. He is not a cold-hearted conservative, he is a caring conservative. He cares deeply about people. He cares deeply about the people of Iowa, too. And I hope I am not a bleeding-heart liberal. I hope I am a liberal who believes in individual responsibility--individual responsibility.

My friend has been a very caring conservative through all these years. I think together we have achieved important things for our State: economic development, rural development, agriculture, energy, all these things we worked together on for Iowa. I am proud of the fact that in Iowa right now with regard to energy production, 25 percent of our energy comes from wind energy in Iowa. We produce the blades and turbines and everything in Iowa and all the jobs there. That is something we have worked together on through all these years.

Again, people have asked me why I am leaving the Senate. Well, it was my decision. At the time--almost 2 years ago--I said, you will never hear me ever say bad things about the Senate or denounce the Senate or say terrible things. I love the Senate. This is a wonderful institution. Yes, we hit a few bumps in the road once in a while, but that is to be expected in a legislative process that represents 300 million people in this country. But working together you form friendships and alliances.

I have often said that as a progressive, I want to go this far this fast and the conservatives want to go this far this slow, but by working together, you

can make progress. You can make progress, and that is what I think both Senator Grassley and I have worked on together. We try to make progress, especially for the people of Iowa.

I thank the Senator for his kind words. I know we are not supposed to say this on the Senate floor; we are always supposed to speak in the third person. But I never wanted to follow all of the rules anyway. So I wish to speak directly and say: Thank you very much, Chuck Grassley, for your friendship, your counsel, and for working together through all these years. I will miss that relationship--working on the Senate floor.

I will be in Iowa. I will be working with the Harkin Institute at Drake University. I will be spending a lot of time on the disability policies and advancing the cause of people with disabilities in some way, shape or form. I don't know how but in some way. It is a nonpartisan institute, and we have a great board of directors. The former chair of the Iowa Republican Party is on the board of the Harkin Institute, and I want to keep it nonpartisan.

I ask that my friend come and speak--and perhaps lead a discussion at some time--at the institute at Drake University. I would be honored if my friend would do that sometime down the road. I don't know when, but sometime when we can work it out. I know my friend will be well received, and I think the young people at Drake need to hear the conservative side of the story as well as the liberal side of the story. They need to have that kind of input. I hope we can work it out.

I say again that I know in the future my friend and his wonderful wife Barbara, a great and wonderful person, and Ruth and I will maintain friendships and our connections as we move into the future. If there is any way we can work together for the benefit of Iowans, just let me know, and I will be glad to be the Senator's lieutenant in the field out there in Iowa sometime.

Again, I thank my friend so much for so many years of counsel and friendship and working together. Thank you, Chuck.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for up to 5 minutes in opposition of the bill presently on the floor.

I oppose this legislation to approve the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Again, I believe it is one more step in the wrong direction, one more capitulation to our fossil fuel habit, one more accelerant to global warming that threatens our children's future. I know I have limited time. I just want to point out that we have had a number of studies done by the Department of Energy recently.

One study found that retrofitting residential and commercial buildings had the potential to reduce consumer demand by 30 percent by 2030 and reduce greenhouse emissions by 1.1 gigatons each year, saving over $680 billion.

The second study found the retrofits--I am talking about building retrofits in America--could save $1 trillion in energy spending over 10 years and reduce CO2 emissions by 10 percent.

What would retrofitting do for jobs?

According to the Rockefeller Foundation, this type of retrofitting nationally would create 3.3 million new jobs.

So why are we talking about building a pipeline that is going to cause the development of more tar sands oil, which is the dirtiest oil in the world--the dirtiest--when it is going to create a few jobs for a very short period of time, a couple of years and that is it.

Why aren't we focusing on what we know works and creates a lot of jobs and saves energy and saves money; that is, retrofitting all of the buildings in America to make them energy efficient--3.3 million jobs in that 10-year period of time, saving us untold billions of dollars in savings for consumers in America, of course reducing greenhouse gases.

I find this whole issue of this Keystone Pipeline to just--at this point in time when the planet is warming up, when we may be at that tipping point where we can't do anything about it, I find this debate about the Keystone Pipeline to be out of bounds, considering the impact it is going to have.

I would say this: After all my years here, serving 10 years on the science and tech committee in the House, serving here on agriculture, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee as chair, study after study I have read, I have come to this conclusion on why I cannot vote for the Keystone XL Pipeline. I have come to this one conclusion: Every dollar that we spend today on developing and using more fossil fuels is another dollar spent in digging the graves of our grandchildren.

I don't want to dig that grave anymore. It is time to get off our fossil fuel habits. I am not so naive as to think we can do this overnight. I understand that. What we ought to be on is a very steep glide slope down, understanding that by focusing on renewable energies, the wind and solar, ocean thermal energy conversion, all of those things, geothermal, and, yes, retrofitting buildings to be more energy efficient would create hundreds of thousands more jobs, millions more jobs than the pipeline. It will make us more secure as a nation. It could have the effect of getting us on that steep glide slope down of fossil fuel. The fossil fuel era comes to an end. That is what we have to do. Bring the fossil fuel era to an end. The sooner we do it, the better it is going to be for our grandkids and our planet.

I know the Keystone Pipeline is a small part of it. It is a small part, but they all add up and one step leads to another. There are those that say they are going to develop the tar sands regardless. I don't believe that.

I have seen a lot of studies that show Canada can't ship that west, and it is too expensive to ship it east on the railroads. The only way they have to go is the pipeline through America. I don't know whether cutting off the Keystone Pipeline will slow down or stop the tar sands development, but I believe we have to do everything in our power to slow it down and to get our neighbors to the north----

Just 1 more minute to finish.

To get our good neighbors, the Canadians, to the north to start moving away from the development of the tar sands, both for their good and for the good of our planet.

I don't want to keep digging the grave for our grandkids. I cannot vote any longer for anything that would develop or use more fossil fuels anywhere in our country or globally.

I yield the floor.

Forty.

If I may respond in kind.

I thank my dear friend and colleague, long-standing in the Senate and in the House before, and to thank the Senator for her intellectual and energetic leadership on all issues concerning the environment and the health of our people and the health of our planet. Senator Boxer has been a stalwart. She has been a Rock of Gibraltar around here in making sense and making sense of our debate and the issues surrounding energy, energy use, energy efficiency, always keeping in mind what it means for the future of our kids.

As I leave the Senate I am happy to note the Senator from California will still be here.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Leela Baggett, Vincent Brown, and Naomi Pitkin, interns with the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of today's session.

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

Madam President, I want to speak in support of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014, the bill that is before us. It has taken us a long time to get to this point. I cannot be more pleased that we are on the verge of sending this legislation to the President for his signature.

We know--we know--that learning begins at birth and the preparation for education begins even before birth. That is why I am very excited about my committee's bill to reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act. This bill will lead to important reforms and improvements to the early care and education of our Nation's children.

This bipartisan legislation is also a big win for working families. It helps make it possible for over 1.5 million kids to receive quality childcare every month. The last time we reauthorized the child care block grant was 1996. When we did that, childcare was seen principally as a work support activity and only incidentally as something that could have a great impact on the development of children. Today, backed by impressive scientific research, we know that childcare settings can and should be much more. In addition to providing critical work support for the parents, early childhood settings are now widely recognized as a rich early learning opportunity for all children.

So it is not just childcare--we are taking care and watching them so they don't get in trouble--it is now childcare that is part of the learning process. As I said, it begins at birth and even before birth. Because much of a child's intellect and skills development begin before he or she begins kindergarten, we need to give all children every opportunity to reach their full potential at this early stage. This means supporting access to high-quality early learning programs, including high-quality childcare. That is why reauthorizing the child care development block grant with the array of reforms and improvements is so important.

This bill contains many commonsense improvements to a program that hasn't been reauthorized, as I said, since 1996. That is nearly a whole generation. We have improved the health and safety requirements by asking States to increase the amount of funding they set aside to serve infants and toddlers. We require pre-service training and ongoing professional development for childcare workers. We ask that States inspect childcare providers at least once a year--hopefully more, but at least once a year.

I am particularly excited about the set-aside that we have in the bill to improve access to and quality of care for infants and toddlers. This is something I included for several years in my appropriations subcommittee bill, and I am pleased that it is now an important component of this reauthorization. These are the kinds of commonsense, research-based activities and services that any parent would want for their child, and they deserve it. That is why I am so pleased we are now on the cusp of passing this important reauthorization.

I should note that this legislation passed the Senate in March of this year by a vote of 96 to 2, and after a few changes by the House, it passed that Chamber by acclamation in September. I believe we had the cloture vote last week, and even then I think there was only one vote against it.

I encourage every Member of the Senate to vote in favor of final passage and finally get this bill to the President's desk.

I wish to especially thank Senators Mikulski and Burr--two members of our committee and the original sponsors of this legislation--for their persistence and commitment in getting this bill done.

I would also like to thank many of the staff for their years of work on this legislation.

I would like to thank Brent Palmer and Jessica McNiece of Senator Mikulski's staff; David Cleary, Peter Oppenheim, and Patrick Murray of Senator Alexander's staff; Chris Toppings and Celia Simms of Senator Burr's staff.

I would like to thank current and past members of my staff: Pam Smith, Derek Miller, Mildred Otero, and Mario Cardona. Of course, I also wish to thank our HELP Committee's ranking member Senator Alexander for his key role in reauthorizing this vital program. And my debt of gratitude to Senator Alexander extends far beyond this particular bill.

This will likely be the last bill originating in the HELP Committee to see floor time in this Congress, and thus, this is the last bill that will come to the Senate floor out of the committee I so proudly chair.

I wish to take this opportunity to express not only my gratitude to Senator Alexander but my respect and admiration for the senior Senator from Tennessee. In the new Congress in January, Senator Alexander will assume

the chairmanship of this HELP Committee, and I know this important committee will be in very able hands.

Throughout my 30 years in the Senate, I have been blessed to share many excellent working relationships with Republican colleagues, both when I served as chair or ranking member on various committees. Senator Arlen Specter was my partner for many years on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies. In fact, from 1989 until the day he left the Senate, Senator Specter and I were either chair or ranking member of that important Appropriations subcommittee.

I had great relationships on the agriculture committee with Senator Dick Lugar, Senator Thad Cochran, and Senator Saxby Chambliss. Since 2009, as chair of the HELP Committee, I have enjoyed very productive relationships, first with Senator Mike Enzi, who had been both the chair and then ranking member of that committee, and more recently with Senator Lamar Alexander, with whom I have worked on CCDBG--the Child Care and Development Block Grant Program that we are now authorizing.

In fact, I am proud to note that when this bill is signed into law by the President, this will be the 21st HELP Committee bill enacted into law in this Congress. In a Congress that has been criticized, rightfully or wrongfully, for its lack of productivity, Senator Alexander and I have forged a partnership that has enabled us to chart a different course--a course of bipartisan productiveness. To cite several examples, we worked together to pass major legislation to revamp and modernize America's job training system, overhaul and improve America's food safety system, improve drug safety and speed the approval of potentially lifesaving drugs--so 21 bills.

Someone said that our committee really represents probably one of the widest spectrums ideologically in the Senate--both from very conservative to very progressive on our committee. Yet we forged these relationships to get things done. Now, just because these relationships have helped us to get these bills through, it doesn't mean that we always agreed on everything.

The fact is our disagreements have been oftentimes and vigorous. After all, I am a proud progressive and Senator Alexander is a proud conservative, but our disagreements have never been personal and they were never the last word. We have consistently sought areas of agreement, and more often than not, we found them. As a result, we have forged a remarkable record of accomplishment in the HELP Committee with 21 bills in 2 years signed into law.

More importantly, we have accomplished big things for the American people. Thanks to legislation passed by our committee, lives will be improved and lives will be saved. Drugs will be approved faster and they will be safer. Workers will have access to quality job training and retraining opportunities, including young people with disabilities who will now have provisions to support them in school to get them ready for competitive, integrated employment or for higher education or for technical education, which they have not really had before. That is one big part of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act that we passed that not too many people know about. So from now on, kids in school who have an IEP--an Individualized Education Program--will now have internships, summer jobs, and job coaching that will, again, raise their expectations and hope of what they can do. They will be able to visit colleges and have college internships or college support systems, which they have never had before, to enable them to seek a higher education or perhaps to go to community colleges. Those are a few of the things we have done on our committee. Soon, with this bill, babies and kids across the country will have better access to safe, high quality, and affordable care.

It has been with great pride that I have been chair of this HELP Committee. I still think it is the best committee in the Congress. I remember once Dan Inouye--Senator Inouye--said that I chaired the committee that helped define America. He chaired the committee that defended America, but I chaired the committee that defined America. I would like to think of the HELP Committee as doing that--an America where every kid has the possibility of going up that ladder or ramp of opportunity no matter the circumstances of his or her birth, where health care is a right and not a privilege, where everyone will have affordable health care coverage.

This committee has even helped those who have fallen off of that ladder of opportunity because of an illness or injury to get back on it with job retraining and support services. This committee has ensured that every person with a disability--either through an accident or through birth or illness--can have a full and meaningful and productive life. Our elderly know they are going to have the kind of support systems that will enable them to also be productive in their retirement years--in their golden years, as they say.

The Labor, Education, Health, and Pensions Committee covers a broad array of how we define America as a caring, compassionate, and productive society. It has been a challenge, but it has also been a great honor and privilege to chair this committee.

As I leave, I can say we are fortunate to have someone of Senator Alexander's depth and breadth of experience. In fact, he has been the Secretary of Education, Governor of Tennessee, and President of the University of Tennessee. He is well qualified, and I know he will do a great job in leading this committee in the future.

I wish to thank all of my committee members, but especially Senator Lamar Alexander from Tennessee, and let him know on the record how much I valued our collaboration and how much I benefited from his counsel and his wisdom.

I urge all Senators to support this new reauthorization--the first time since 1996--of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Program.

With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I thank the Senator for her important question. Her understanding is correct. The definition of homeless children and youth found at 42 U.S.C. Sec. 11434A is the definition we intend to apply to homeless children and families where those terms are used in this bill.

Madam President, again, I thank the Senator for this clarifying question. Under this bill, State plans must include a certification that there are in effect in the State requirements that include the establishment of a grace period that allows homeless children to receive services while their families are taking any necessary actions to comply with immunization and other health and safety requirements. That requirement stands apart from procedures the State uses to permit enrollment of homeless children while other required documentation is obtained.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will to meet on November 20, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Hearing on the nomination of Lauren McFerran to serve as a Member of the National Labor Relations Board.''

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Sarah Cupp of the committee staff on (202) 224-5484.

committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will to meet on November 20, 2014, at 1 p.m., in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Why Are Some Generic Drugs Skyrocketing In Price?''.

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Billy Gendell of the committee staff on (202) 224-5480.

Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that Mark Summerside, Marcha Chaudry, and Zack Decker, the interns with my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of today's session.

I would like to recognize the outstanding career of a dedicated civil servant, Iowan Dr. Nancy Cox, who will retire in November 2014 after 37 years of distinguished Federal service at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Cox started working on influenza at CDC in 1976. Thirty-seven years and 278 publications later, she has transformed the surveillance and science of influenza viruses and vaccines. Her scientific work has been critical, given the tremendous global burden of human seasonal influenza--1 billion cases, 3 to 5 million severe illnesses, and 300,000 to 500,000 deaths each year. In addition, avian or swine influenza viruses can adapt to human-to-human transmission, leading to global and devastating pandemics with disruption in commerce and tragic numbers of illnesses and deaths. The breadth and depth of influenzas impact is vast, underscoring Dr. Cox's vital contribution from her science and service.

Dr. Cox began her senior leadership duties years ago directing a small branch of 40 to 50 staff. Today she oversees more than 320 staff, and the Influenza Division she directs has broad responsibilities as the U.S. Government, USG, lead for influenza prevention and control, and as one of five World Health Organization Collaborating Centers for the Surveillance, Epidemiology and Control of Influenza. Dr. Cox recognized that influenza prevention and control requires a broad, multifaceted surveillance effort. Through her scientific leadership, direction, and publication of scientific findings, CDC established surveillance for various aspects of influenza illness to improve the understanding of influenza impact and to provide ongoing influenza surveillance data throughout the season to inform clinical management and to monitor effectiveness of influenza prevention efforts.

During her 37 years at CDC, Dr. Cox has served as mentor, educator, supervisor, and supporter to hundreds of individuals: undergraduates, medical and PhD students, postdoctoral fellows, laboratory and epidemiology staff members, journalists, and visiting researchers. As Director of the WHO Collaborating Center for the Surveillance, Epidemiology and Control of Influenza at CDC, Dr. Cox has worked closely with public health laboratory officials from Russia, Vietnam, and China, leading to transforming their capabilities in influenza virology and surveillance. Her oversight of influenza laboratories at CDC has set the standards for measuring immune response in infected and vaccinated people and also has led CDC to be the global reference center for antiviral resistance and for measuring transmission of influenza viruses in animal models. Her leadership at WHO has also led to significant changes in the methods, reporting, interpretation, and policy development for selecting candidate vaccine viruses for use in annual vaccine production. Dr. Cox has been able to see where the field of influenza prevention and control needs to go to address emerging problems, and the successes of her scientific intuition and persistence are present in many places around the globe.

Dr. Cox has been recognized by virologists, public health officials, leaders in State and Federal governments, international leaders, academics, and others. She is the recipient of 10 National Center for Infectious Disease recognition awards, 7 Nakano Awards, 4 Shepard Awards, Lancet Paper of the Year, Time Magazine's The Time 100: People Who Shape Our World, Service to America Award, CDC's Lifetime Achievement Award, and the USG-wide award for Federal Employee of the Year. She has served as a reviewer for numerous scientific journals and research grant efforts. She is frequently invited by editors of Science, New England Journal of Medicine, and other journals to write editorials and opinion pieces. She has been chair of many scientific panels and symposia and has served on various scientific committees for international conferences and global influenza policy development workgroups. Even more important than her past contribution is the solid footing of CDCs Influenza Division for the future that she leaves as her legacy.

Dr. Cox is an Iowa native--born in Emmetsburg--and attended Iowa State University, ISU, where she got a BS in bacteriology in 1970. She is a life member of the ISU alumni association. In addition to her Iowa State degree, she has a doctorate in virology from the University of Cambridge and was a postdoctoral fellow at both the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

About the same--about 3 minutes.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Alexander and myself, I do object to the unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I will take about 3 minutes, and I would like to thank my friend from Pennsylvania for being a gentleman and letting me have a few minutes to express myself before he gives his own expression of support for this bill.

First of all, I appreciate Senators Toomey and Manchin's interest in this issue. We have worked on this over the months to try to accommodate this legislation and to move it, but the issues are complex. The bill would affect millions of people. Members of the education and civil rights communities and others have raised legitimate concerns that we need to work through.

Members on both sides of the HELP Committee--which I am privileged to chair--have expressed hesitation about moving this absent constructive engagement by our committee.

Unfortunately, the Senator is asking us to take this bill without any debate or committee consideration. That, again, is a formula for bad legislation because recent steps have been taken by States to do their own background check requirements.

For example--I don't know this particularly--Pennsylvania recently enacted legislation to protect kids in school. We need to make sure that whatever we do here does not interfere with what the States themselves are doing. I think probably my colleague Senator Alexander would address himself to that.

Again, this is the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act which passed 96 to 2 here in the Senate. In fact, the Senator from Pennsylvania supported the bill. It went to the House. They changed it a little bit, and then they passed it on a voice vote and sent it back to us. Now we are concurring in that vote in the House. Again, the bill is ready to go.

I would state for the record that back in September Senator Alexander and I had offered the Senator from Pennsylvania a hearing on the bill and then an immediate markup. We would go to markup. What I could not guarantee the Senator from Pennsylvania was that his bill would come through as he wrote it. The committee sometimes makes decisions to change this or do that. I couldn't guarantee him that. What I could guarantee was a hearing and an immediate markup on the bill. But that did not seem to be acceptable to the Senator from Pennsylvania, and I understand.

Again, I just want the record to reflect that I am not unsympathetic to the goals of Senator Toomey and Senator Manchin on this issue, but I do believe it should go through the committee process. Since we are so close--we have worked on this Child Care and Development Block Grant Act a long time and it passed 96 to 2. The House added one little thing, and they passed it by voice vote; we agreed to that. We are ready to pass it and send it to the President.

We have had a great bipartisan working relationship on our committee thanks to our ranking member, Senator Alexander, who will be taking over the chairmanship of this committee in January. I couldn't have asked for a better partner. We have a very diverse committee, but we passed 18 bills through our committee and signed by the President in the last 2 years. This will be the 19th.

So because we haven't had any markup on the amendment, that is why I am objecting--not that I am absolutely opposed to what the Senator is trying to do. But I do believe people on my committee deserve to have some input into this. Since I will be leaving, it will then be Senator Alexander's committee after the first of the year.

I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for allowing me to speak first, and I yield the floor.