Floor Statements

Madam President, we yield back all time.

Madam President, I think the end is in sight, hopefully, on this bill. Our staff has been working hard. We have all been working hard to get amendments worked out. I know both sides have conference lunches that are taking place now. So we hope to come back shortly after these luncheons conclude. We will then be able to move ahead.

As I understand it, there are three amendments pending. We don't know whether they will have votes, but we are working on that right now. So I hope we can have final passage on this bill very shortly.

Does my friend, the Senator from North Carolina, concur with that?

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, the amendment has the admirable goal of prioritizing funds to low-income families who have children with disabilities. I applaud Senator Vitter's efforts and hope this provides significant reinforcement of what has been the law since 1996--that States must prioritize children from very low-income families

who have children with disabilities. This amendment reinforces that by saying the Department of Health and Human Services must meet that promise. There is a provision in there that gives them adequate time to make sure they do that.

Again, I thank the Senator from Louisiana for working with us. As I said when this amendment first came up, yes, as someone who has worked on disability issues for most of my adult life, I agreed with exactly what he wanted to do; there were just some language problems. That is the way we get legislation done around here--we work things out and we find the middle ground on which everybody can agree. I thank the Senator from Louisiana for his willingness to work this out. We support the amendment.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Section 8(B)

Yes, I would agree. As our committee report explains, it is intended that ``States exercise this provision in an attempt to maximize the effective administration and delivery of Federally subsidized childcare, and not for purposes that have a minor effect on childcare.''

I firmly believe, and I know my colleagues will agree, that this provision is not intended, nor should it be interpreted, as one that can be used to rewrite any other current laws, evade central provisions of other current laws, or undermine the goals and purposes of other laws. Certainly, it is not our intent to allow States to change, undermine or threaten in any way current laws.

The Senator from North Carolina is correct that HHS has shared with me that S. 1086, and any further congressional changes made to S. 1086, would override the May 2013 notice of proposed rulemaking to the CCDF.

Madam President, for the information of Senators, we are now down to two voice votes on two pending amendments that have been cleared. We will then have a rollcall vote on final passage. I am hopeful that is going to happen within a very short period of time. In maybe 5 minutes or 10 minutes, I hope we will be ready for a final vote on this bill.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, we have no further debate on the two pending amendments--Portman No. 2847 and Sanders No. 2846--and the substitute. I know of--Madam President, I was misinformed. I thought those amendments had already been called up.

Madam President, I would like to call up in order Portman amendment No. 2847 and Sanders amendment No. 2846 and ask for their immediate consideration.

Madam President, as I said, I know of no further debate on those amendments. We are ready to vote.

Madam President, I withdraw my pending amendment.

Madam President, again, I know of no further amendments or debate.

Madam President, I would like to join my colleagues and thank everyone for getting this bill done. This is a good bill. First, I would again say thanks to both Senator Burr and Senator Mikulski. This is really their bill. They spent the better part of 2 years working this out.

I would like to say that we have had a good day here to work this out, as Senator Alexander said. But a lot of that is the preliminary work that goes into developing a bill such as this over a long period of time. So my respect--my great respect--and my thanks to both Senator Burr and Senator Mikulski for getting this bill to where we are now.

My thanks to my good friend Senator Alexander and for the great partnership we have working together on the committee. As he said the other day, no other committee has a wider divergence of ideological views than our committee, but I believe, if I am not mistaken, this is the 19th or 20th bill we have gotten through our committee this Congress.

Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Yes, of course I will yield.

The leader is right. Senator Lee was very accommodating in letting us move forward on this bill. I appreciate that.

We accomplished a lot in the floor process, as Senator Alexander said. I think we can adopt the legislation, making it an even stronger bill. I would not like to thank a lot of the staff. I hope I do not miss anyone. David Cleary, Peter Oppenheim, Patrick Murray, Marty West, and Bill Knudsen of Senator Alexander's staff.

I would like to thank Chris Toppings and Natasha Hickman of Senator Burr's staff.

I would like to commend the work of Jessica McNiece and Brent Palmer of Senator Mikulski's staff.

Finally, I would like to thank Pam Smith, who is not here but who worked on this for a long time, Derek Miller, Mildred Otero, Mario Cardona, Soncia Coleman, Michael Gamel McCormick, Leanne Hotek, Brit Moller, and Aissa Canchola of my staff.

I also wish to thank, from the staffs of Senator Murray, Sarah Bolton; Senator Sanders, David Cohen; Senator Casey, Sara Mabry and Christina Baumgardner; Senator Hagan, Ashley Eden; Senator Franken, Gohar Sedighi and Maggie Henderson; Senator Bennet, Juliana Herman and Molly Fishman; Senator Whitehouse, Rick Van Buren; Senator Baldwin, Michael Dinapolo; Senator Murphy, Yoon Hayne; Senator Warren, Julie Morgan; Senator Enzi, Kristin Chapman; Senator Isakson, Brett Layson; Senator Paul, Natalie Burkholter; Senator Hatch, Katie Neal; Senator Roberts, Joshua Yurek; Senator Murkowski, Karen McCarthy; Senator Kirk, Cabe Clurman; and Senator Scott, Elizabeth Simmons.

As I said at the beginning of this bill's consideration, this bill represents a strong, positive shift for working families in America who benefit from the childcare subsidy program. I hope my colleagues will join all of us in voting to give this an overwhelming vote of yes on final passage.

I know of no further debate on the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to the nominations confirmed today, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back 2 minutes.

Madam President, I am pleased the Senate is now considering the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014. I have a first-degree amendment to the committee-reported substitute amendment at the desk.

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

Madam President, we are now on the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014. I know Senator Alexander and I, and others, are anxious to consider amendments. I encourage people who have amendments to bring them to the floor so Senator Burr, Senator Alexander, Senator Mikulski or I could look at them and get things lined up.

It is my intent--and I hope I can speak for Senator Alexander on this too--to have an open yet managed process with respect to this bill and for Senators who have relevant amendments to have the opportunity to have them offered and to be voted on. I expect we would have a couple of votes within the next few hours. I don't even know when but sometime soon. So again, I strongly encourage Senators with amendments to bring them over and file them so we can get them discussed expeditiously.

This bill was voted unanimously out of the HELP Committee last September. I hope it will receive strong bipartisan support here on the Senate floor. I give tremendous credit and thanks to Senators Mikulski and

Burr, the sponsors of this legislation, for their leadership in this process over a couple of years working together, creating a bill which takes huge steps in improving the lives of children and their families.

At the outset I also thank our ranking member Senator Alexander for his partnership and for working with us to reauthorize this vital program. Our offices have worked collaboratively over the last couple of years to produce a strong bipartisan bill.

I would start first by saying this program has a big impact in my State of Iowa. Right now Iowa serves about 15,800 children every month with CCDBG funds: 28 percent infants and toddlers; 26 percent ages 3 to 4; and about half or 46 percent, ages 5 to 13.

Most people think of this simply as a childcare-type bill for infants and toddlers, but this is not true. This goes to age 13, but over half goes to those under the age of 5.

The last time this was reauthorized in 1996, 18 years ago, this program was basically looked at as mainly a work support program, taking care of kids while parents went to work. It was only incidentally thought of as something which could have a real impact on the lives of kids. Well, 18 years later and backed by scientific research, we know the program can and should be much more. In addition to providing vital work support for parents, it could be a rich early learning opportunity for children.

In 2000 the National Research Council published a groundbreaking report called ``Neurons to Neighborhoods.'' The report's author said:

From the time of conception to the first day of

kindergarten, development proceeds at a pace exceeding that

of any subsequent stage of life. . . . that what happens

during the first months and years of life matters a lot, not

because this period of development provides an indelible

blueprint for adult well-being, but because it sets either a

sturdy or fragile stage for what follows.

What this bill does is set that sturdy stage.

This report that I talk about from the National Research Council reinforces what we already know--that learning starts at birth and that preparation for learning begins even before birth. Eighty percent of a child's brain develops between birth and age 3. Because much of a child's intellect and skills develop before he or she begins kindergarten, we need to give all children every opportunity to reach their full potential at their earliest stages in life. This means supporting access to high-quality early-learning programs, including high-quality childcare.

The bill before us represents a strong and positive advance for low- income families who benefit from the childcare subsidies. The bill makes many needed improvements that will help establish high expectations for federally subsidized childcare in this country. The bill accomplishes a lot of good. I will highlight two or three items here.

First of all, education and training for childcare workers. Under this bill the States that apply and get these block grants will need to develop minimum education and training requirements for childcare workers that describe what they must know and be able to do to promote the health and development of the children they serve. Just as we know that a great teacher is one of the most important factors in a classroom, we also know that one of the most critical components of early development in children is whether they have supportive nurturing interactions with caring adults.

Another important thing we do in the bill is to promote safety and health standards. This bill ensures that licensed childcare providers receive a prelicensure inspection and one annual inspection thereafter. Alarmingly, some States inspect childcare centers only once in 5 years. Some States don't even do a prelicensure inspection until a provider is serving more than a dozen children.

The bill also stipulates and focuses on vulnerable populations, including children with disabilities, infants and toddlers, and children whose parents work nontraditional hours. I want to highlight that the sponsors of this bill, Senator Burr and Senator Mikulski, took great care to ensure that childcare programs supported through this block grant would be well-suited for children with special needs and their families. The legislation asks States to consider the unique needs of children with disabilities when developing training requirements for childcare workers. A childcare worker may be trained to take care of nondisabled children. But taking care of a child with a disability requires a little bit more expertise and a little extra training, and that is what this bill does provide. It also lets parents know the types of services available through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

The bill also provides families with stability and continuity of care for families. Once they receive care, they are going to get it for at least 1 year if they are initially deemed eligible. Currently, some States require parents to reapply for care after only a few months. In some cases States will kick parents off of care if they receive a small pay raise that makes them ineligible under the State's eligibility guidelines. This bill remedies this by ensuring that as long as a parent is working or is in a training program and whose income does not exceed 85 percent of the State's median income, they will get care for at least 1 year without having to work. Again, this helps children because we know that a lot of times these kinds of disruptions can really set a child back, and this allows at least for continuity for 1 year.

The bill also supports the development of a Web site. I know Senator Burr was very interested in that and helped promote and put that in the bill. The Web site is going to be available for all parents to show them the range of childcare providers in their area so they can shop around and see what is out there.

Right now the law says States can set the eligibility requirement as long as it does not exceed 85 percent of the State's median income. If you look at all of the children ages 0 to age 13--because the bill covers up to age 13--if you look at preschool age kids 0 to 5, we do a little bit better. States are serving a little more than a quarter of the children who would be eligible under the Federal guidelines. I think this shows the present landscape right now. Out of 100 percent of the kids that are eligible, we have 73 percent eligible preschool-aged children not being served. There are about 27 percent of preschool-aged children being served. So we do have a long way to go. As chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, our committee has fought for years to increase funding so we can serve more children. The fiscal year 2014 omnibus included more than a $154 million increase for the childcare program. I know that sounds like a lot, but all that it did was replace the $118 million cut that happened because of sequestration. We replaced the $118 million plus whatever that figures out to--about another $36 more million. So it helps. The increased funding will help States improve access to quality and affordable childcare by increasing the number of kids who can receive it.

But actually we have a long way to go. The last chart shows what is happening. If you look at the blue line at the bottom, that is the actual funding in this program. If you go back to 2005 and see what was in place, we are about $600 million short of where we would be if we kept up with inflation. You see, this is 2005. Those who have been around since then, we know what it was like before that. We have lost a lot of ground. So we need to make that up, and I hope we can do that in our appropriations bills that are coming up.

This bill changes the landscape and makes it a lot better for families out there. The bill authorizes the funding, but the appropriations have to fund it. I hope that we can in fiscal year 2015 continue to be able to keep up the funding increases for the childcare development block grants.

It is a good bill. I am very proud of this bill, proud of the efforts that Senator Burr and Senator Mikulski put into it over a long period of time. So I urge my colleagues to join in the bipartisan spirit of cooperation that we have witnessed in the health committee over the last year.

If Senators have amendments that are germane to the bill, I encourage them to bring them over so we can take a look at them and determine a fair path forward with respect to those amendments.

Again, I thank Senator Alexander for a great working relationship on this committee and thank him for

working so hard to help bring this bill forward to the bill today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I first thank Senator Enzi again for working with us for a long time on the committee to put this bill together, and I thank him for this amendment.

Basically, GAO's 2012 annual report noted the Department of Education and Health and Human Services should be increasing their coordination efforts in dealing with childcare and early learning programs. This amendment would require them to collaborate and conduct a comprehensive review of the 45 programs which currently support early learning and childcare across the country. This would ensure better coordination, reduction in duplication, and effective programming for children.

I say to my friend from Wyoming, on Monday I was in my home State of Iowa, in Des Moines, visiting an early learning center. On Saturday, I was in Ames visiting an early learning center in preparation for this bill to be on the floor. Monday, I was meeting with everyone there. With all of the different funding streams which come through and all of the different cross-purposes, I finally said: Stop a minute. I am confused.

They said: If you are confused, so are we.

Even the people running the programs--everything has some different

thing they have to fill out paperwork for to qualify.

So I am particularly sensitive to the Senator's amendment, having just tried to wade through all of that just a couple days ago in Iowa.

I thank my friend from Wyoming. It is a good amendment and should be adopted. We certainly support the amendment.

I concur.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Landrieu, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up her amendment No. 2818.

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

On behalf of Senator Franken, I call up his amendment No. 2822.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:30 p.m. today the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the following pending amendments, in the order listed: Enzi amendment No. 2812 and Franken amendment No. 2822; further, that no second-degree amendments be in order to either amendment prior to the votes.

Mr. President, I would like to modify my request for unanimous consent that the second vote be a 10-minute vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I wish to join with Senator Burr in supporting the amendment.

Amendment No. 2812

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Yes, that sounds exactly how we are proceeding.

I thank the Senator from Tennessee for all the good work and the cooperation we have had on both sides. I think we are on a good path.

I reiterate and reemphasize that if anyone has amendments they want to offer and speak about, I would say between 4 and 5 is a good time to do it today. Then we will have two votes probably around 5:15. We are hoping maybe one can be voice voted at that time.

Amendment No. 2822

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside, and call up the following amendments: Bennet- Isakson No. 2824; and, Boxer-Burr No. 2809.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:15 p.m., the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments in the order listed: Landrieu No. 2818; Landrieu-Grassley No. 2813; Landrieu-Blunt No. 2814; and Bennett-Isakson No. 2824; further, that no second-degree amendments be in order to any of these amendments prior to the votes.

For the information of all Senators, it is our understanding that only one of these four amendments will be subject to a rollcall vote, Landrieu No. 2818, and the others will hopefully be done by voice votes at 5:15.

Unanimous Consent--Executive Calendar

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of the Bennet-Isakson amendment, the Senate proceed to executive session for consideration of the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 682, 617, 614, 545; that the Senate proceed to vote in the order listed without intervening action or debate on the nominations; the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Vote on Amendment No. 2813

Mr. President, we have no objections to this amendment. We agree to it and urge its adoption.

I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Vote on Amendment No. 2814

I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Vote on Amendment No. 2824

I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

First, Mr. President, I concur in everything the Senator from North Carolina just said. This is a very good bill. It is a great bill. The Senator from North Carolina has put a lot into this bill over the last couple of years, and we are close to seeing the finish line. So I hope Senators and their staffs who may not be present but who are watching will do just as the Senator suggested. If they have amendments, get them over to the floor tonight during morning business; we will take those up, our staffs can work those out, and, hopefully, we will be on track to finish the bill tomorrow.

Again, I thank the Senator from North Carolina for all the hard work he has put in over a long period of time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider the Landrieu amendment No. 2818 be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business until 7 p.m. with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet on March 11, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Access and Cost: What the U.S. Health Care System Can Learn from Other Countries.''

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

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet on March 12, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``From Poverty to Opportunity: How a Fair Minimum Wage Will Help Working Families Succeed.''

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Sarah Cupp of the committee staff on (202) 224-5363.

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet on March 13, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Protecting the Public Health: Examining FDA's Initiatives and Priorities.''

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Emily Schlichting of the committee staff on (202) 224-6840.

Earlier today a vote was taken in the Senate that, to this Senator, marked about the lowest point that I think this Senate has descended in my 30 years here. I don't say that lightly. I was in Congress during the impeachment process trial for President Clinton. I thought that was a low, but it didn't compare to what happened today.

The vote on Debo Adegbile to be Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice sent a strong message. This is the message we sent today and, young people, listen up.

If you are a young White person working for a law firm and have a chance to defend someone who has done something wrong--even a heinous crime--my advice from what happened today is you should feel free to go ahead and do your job as a lawyer. Who knows? You might wind up as the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court one day.

However, if you are a young Black person working on civil rights issues at the NAACP legal defense fund and you--under your obligations as an attorney--are called upon to handle an appeal for someone who committed a heinous crime, the message sent today is you're putting your career on the line.

If you fulfill your duty as a lawyer, you will be denied by the Senate from being an assistant attorney general in the U.S. Department of Justice. We have a double standard, a terrible double standard.

While in private practice, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court defended a mass murderer in Florida who committed eight murders. He is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Did we hear one peep from the Republican side? I didn't hear anyone on this Senate floor at that time raising it as any issue at all for his qualifications to be a judge on the appeals court or to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and rightfully so. It should have never been an issue. He was fulfilling his legal obligations and his moral duty as a lawyer.

Debo Adegbile, working as an attorney for the NAACP legal defense fund, did nothing different. He was only asked to work on an appeal. And because of that, and only because of that, he was excoriated on the Senate floor and denied his opportunity to be an Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.

Did anyone raise an issue of his qualifications? No. He is eminently qualified. But person after person spoke about the heinous murder that took place in Philadelphia, the murder of a police officer by a young Black man who had bragged about it--a heinous crime, a horrible crime. Debo Adegbile didn't defend him at trial. He only filed appeals aimed at protecting the defendant's civil rights and the civil rights of all Americans.

I listened to the Senator from Pennsylvania this morning. He had a big poster with a picture of the police officer and his wife on their wedding day. He was talking about how horrible a crime this was, how the murderer had bragged about it, and all that is terrible.

But it had nothing to do with Debo Adegbile. The Senator from Pennsylvania said it is why Mr. Adegbile should not be approved to be an assistant attorney general, because he worked as a lawyer on a defendant's appeal.

What about the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? He defended a person who killed eight people. I don't see my friends on the Republican side of the aisle clamoring to institute an impeachment process. Maybe they did not know that John Roberts defended a mass murderer. But now that they do, are they going to try to impeach the Chief Justice because he fulfilled his legal obligation to defend a murderer?

I hope you see the ridiculousness of that argument and how unfair it was for Debo Adegbile to be denied--not on the basis of any qualifications but because he was fulfilling his duty as a lawyer. I have not heard one person say he is unqualified or he has done something that would disqualify him. No. He did what he was supposed to do within his legal profession--and he was denied.

Shame. Shame on this Senate. Shame on every Senator who claims to be a lawyer, who went to law school, raised their hand and was sworn into the bar. Shame on every lawyer who voted against Mr. Adegbile because he worked on an appeal.

If somebody had some question about his qualifications or felt that Mr. Adegbile is totally unqualified, that is a different story. I challenge anyone to come forward with anything remotely connected to his qualifications that would show him to be unqualified.

I wish to read--and I will close shortly--a quote from James Silkenat, the president of the American Bar Association. Listen up, lawyers.

He said:

A fundamental tenet of our justice system and our

Constitution is that anyone who faces loss of liberty has a

right to legal counsel. Lawyers have an ethical obligation to

uphold that principle and provide zealous representation to

people who otherwise would stand alone against the power and

resources of the government--even to those accused or

convicted of terrible crimes.

Continuing:

I was alarmed to learn that there is some opposition to Mr.

Adegbile's nomination based solely on his efforts to protect

the fundamental rights of an unpopular client while working

at the legal defense fund. His work, like the work of ABA

members who provide thousands of hours of pro bono legal

services every year, is consistent with the finest tradition

of this country's legal profession and should be commended,

not condemned.

Shameful. It was a shameful vote today, a rush to judgment based upon emotion.

I will not name any names, but I had one Senator say: My head tells me he should be confirmed, but my guts, my emotion, say no.

We make our decisions based on that around here? God help us. Maybe we ought to all go back and think about ``To Kill a Mockingbird.'' Read the book, watch the movie, and know what it is to stand against the powers of government and defend someone who is unpopular.

Mr. Adegbile wasn't even the defense attorney. He only worked on an appeal relating directly to legal issues particularly important to the civil rights community.

Shame on the Fraternal Order of Police. Shame on them. I have been one of their strong supporters for my 30 years, but shame on them for doing this. Shame on them. They mounted a campaign against Mr. Adegbile just on that one thing. Shame on all of us here, especially the lawyers--especially the lawyers. It was a rush to judgment and a shameful episode in the history of the Senate.

I know Senator Reid filed a motion to reconsider. I hope he will, and I hope people will pray on this and think back, especially the lawyers who are in the Senate. Think about it. Think about the ethical obligation, the ethical obligation to do what he did--and he did nothing wrong. Hopefully Mr. Adegbile, on a motion to reconsider, will have the votes to take his position as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in the Justice Department.

It is a shameful day for the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to recognize the 30th anniversary of a special place in our Senate community--the Senate employees' childcare center. The teachers and administrators at the center are some of the unsung heroes of the Senate, and it is a privilege to be able to pay tribute to them today.

The Senate employees' childcare center opened its doors on February 27, 1984, as the result of a small group of Senate employees who came together as parents to create a childcare program for their children that would best meet the unique needs of Senate employees. Although operating out of different buildings, the center has been in continuous operation since its opening day. In 1989, the center became the first childcare center in Washington, DC, to receive accreditation by the National Association for the Education of Young Children--a hallmark of quality in the child care world--and it has remained accredited ever since.

Over the years the center has grown in size and has moved locations several times, but one thing that has never

changed is the center's commitment to excellence. Through the dedicated efforts of its administrators and faculty, the center provides an exceptional level of care and a top-notch early childhood education program. While adhering to rigorous standards, the center also remains a warm and close-knit community. It is now a separate nonprofit governed by a parent board of directors, and all of the parents regularly donate their time and their energy--from organizing the center's library to washing crib sheets and blankets--to ensure that the center runs smoothly. It is a place where everyone knows every child's name and where children rush in the doors in the morning with smiles on their faces because they know they are going to a place where they will be welcomed, where they will learn, and where they will be loved.

That loving environment is provided by the people who are truly the heart of the Senate childcare center--its teachers. Childcare workers perform some of the most difficult and most important jobs in our society. Their job is far more than feeding, diapering, and keeping children safe. They help develop young minds in the earliest, most critical developmental years. Childcare workers don't do their jobs for the money, and they often don't get the respect they deserve. They do their jobs because they love children and they love being a part of watching them grow.

The center is blessed with a particularly exceptional faculty--many of the teachers have been there for decades. They have watched the children they have cared for grow up, go to college, get married, and have children of their own, and they are still there with open arms and loving hearts for the next generation of children that walk through the door. Though they are not technically public employees, there is no doubt that they are dedicated public servants who make an invaluable contribution to the Senate community.

I want to particularly recognize a few of the most longstanding faculty members at the center. Phyllis Green, the lead teacher in the center's toddler room, has been with the center all 30 years of its operation. Parents describe her as a warm, steady, and nurturing presence, who has helped countless children discover the world and gain new skills and new independence. Anyone who can spend 30 years with toddlers is truly a remarkable individual, and I applaud ``Ms. Phyllis'' for her years of service. Other teachers with longstanding service include the center's beloved assistant director, Bridgette Waters, who is marking her 20th year this year, teachers Janet Green- Tucker, Joan Middleton, Michelle Buckner, and Rosa Woodard, each of whom has served, or will soon serve, 20 years or more with the center, and teachers Pia Corona, Tangela Cassell-Johnson, Andrea Henriques, Kellie Salley, and Mishele Torbati, each of whom has served, or will soon have served, 10 years or more.

I would also like to recognize the 9 years of service provided by the center's departing director, Christine Schoppe Wauls, who will leave our community at the end of the month to enjoy her well-deserved retirement. Christine, thank you for your years of service to the Senate community. Indeed, the entire faculty and staff of the center deserve our respect and gratitude for the important work that they do each day.

I have often said that when a staffer signs up to work for the Senate, their whole family really signs up for public service. Senate families make many sacrifices so that a parent--or sometimes both parents--can serve the Senate. For the parents who send their children to the Senate childcare center, the difficult balancing act of work and family is made just a little bit easier.

It is a great comfort to Senate staffers to know that their children are in such wonderful care. It is a great comfort to us as Senators to know that our staff can do their jobs well without worrying about their children's safety and well-being. We would be a better country if every working American could have the same kind of security and peace of mind when they go to work each day.

So on this, the 30th anniversary of the Senate employees' childcare center, I offer my congratulations to the center for achieving this important milestone and my very best wishes for many more years of service.

Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to the former Deputy Secretary of Labor, Seth Harris, who recently left the Department after nearly 5 years of service. In his time serving as both Deputy Secretary and Acting Secretary, Seth was an invaluable asset to the Department. He brought to these positions a deep knowledge of both the agency and labor law, and he made significant contributions to the Department both as a manager and as a policy expert. Perhaps most important, he brought to these positions the lifelong passion for helping working families succeed that has been the hallmark of his impressive career.

Indeed, this was not Seth's first stint at the Department of Labor. He served for 7 years at the Department during the Clinton Administration, under both Secretaries Robert Reich and Alexis Herman. During this time, he served as counselor to the Secretary of Labor and as Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy, among other roles. He then moved to the academy, where he served as a professor of law at the New York Law School and director of its Labor & Employment Law Programs. While teaching at the New York Law School, his scholarship often focused on a law that is particularly close to my heart--the Americans with Disabilities Act. While teaching, Seth was also a Senior Fellow at the Life Without Limits Project of the United Cerebral Palsy Association, and was a member of the National Advisory Commission on Workplace Flexibility. When President Obama took office, Seth again answered the call to serve his country, and was confirmed as the eleventh United States Deputy Secretary of Labor in May of 2009.

I can understand why he wanted to return to the Department. As I have said on more than one occasion, of all the executive agencies, it may be the Department of Labor that touches the lives of ordinary working Americans the most on a day-to-day basis. The Department of Labor ensures that every American receives a fair day's pay for a hard day's work, and can come home from work safely each night. It helps ensure that a working mother can stay home to bond with her newborn child and still have a job to return to. It helps workers who have been laid off, veterans returning from military service, young people with disabilities entering the workforce and those who develop disabilities and are trying to reenter the workforce--it helps all of these workers to build new skills and aspire to better opportunities for the future. In addition, the Department helps guarantee that hardworking people who have saved all their lives for retirement can enjoy their golden years with security and peace of mind.

Yet, despite this important mission, it is safe to say that when Seth and the current leadership team arrived at the Department, it was an agency suffering from significant neglect. Enforcement activity was down. Vital regulations to protect workers had been weakened or repealed. The agency faced significant management challenges. Not surprisingly, the morale of the agency's career staff was low.

It has been heartening to see this critical agency revitalized under the Obama administration. Enforcement statistics are improving. More workers are getting better training so they can find better jobs. Employee morale at the agency is improving. In short, the Department of Labor is doing what it is supposed to be doing, and doing it well. As Deputy Secretary--the official responsible for overseeing the day-to- day operations of the Department--Seth Harris played a key role in helping the Department meet these challenges.

In a message to Department staff upon his departure, Seth shared some of the agency's accomplishments over the last 5 years. I wanted to include this list in the Record, because it is an impressive array of achievements. To quote his message:

Last year, we achieved the lowest workplace fatality rate

for miners, the fewest number of miners dying in workplace

accidents, and the fewest workplace injuries in

mines, ever. Over the last five years, we have twice achieved

the lowest rate of fatalities in general industry, ever,

including last year. And over the last five years, we

achieved the lowest fatality rate in the construction

industry, ever.

Last year, we conducted the largest number of whistleblower

investigations, ever. Last year, we helped more miners who

suffered retaliation from their employers for raising health

and safety concerns than were helped in the entire second

term of the Bush Administration or the entire second term of

the Clinton Administration. Black lung that cripples and

kills miners will become much, much rarer under a new rule we

proposed. Hundreds of deaths and thousands of morbid

illnesses will be prevented each year under a new rule we

proposed to protect workers from exposure to silica.

Over the past 5 years, we have returned more than $1.1

billion in wages to the workers from whom they had been

stolen. We conducted the largest number of directed Davis-

Bacon investigations, ever. And we did the best job, ever, of

targeting our wage and hour investigations to the workplaces

that had violations, even when the workers felt too

threatened and too disempowered to complain. We expanded

minimum wage and overtime protections to nearly 2 million

home health aides. The people who care for us when we need

them most will now get the most basic of worker protections.

Last year, we conducted the largest number of pension and

health plan investigations over the past five years. During

that same period, we recovered more than $1.3 billion in

pension and health plan benefits for more than 710,000

participants and beneficiaries through informal resolutions.

We also promulgated almost two dozen rules with our

colleagues at Treasury and HHS to implement the President's

historic health care law.

Last year, we assured that the largest percentage of

workers exiting Labor Department job training programs got

industry-recognized credentials. We also helped hundreds of

community colleges work with employers to give tens of

thousands of workers skills that employers need right now and

will need for years to come. We expanded eligibility for the

Trade Adjustment Assistance and unemployment insurance under

the President's Recovery Act. And we nursed all 53

jurisdictions administering UI programs through the worst

unemployment crisis in seven decades.

Last year, we did the best job, ever, of targeting the very

small number of union officers and staff who embezzle funds

or engage in fraud. We also achieved near record efficiency

in concluding investigations of union elections despite the

fewest resources available ever.

Over the past five years, we have stripped away a mountain

of bureaucratic and legal barriers that kept our civil rights

agency from finding and remedying discrimination. And we are

finding and fixing pay discrimination, in particular, at an

accelerating rate. We changed the law so that hundreds of

thousands more people with disabilities and veterans will get

jobs with federal contractors every year.

Last year, we helped the highest percentage of federal

employees with disabilities on workers compensation to return

to work since we started keeping records on this activity. We

also processed workers compensation claims for longshore

workers and energy employees at the fastest clip, ever.

We have done the best job, ever, of managing the taxpayers'

money entrusted to the Labor Department's care. We have had

five consecutive years of clean financial audits, and these

last two years, we had no material deficiencies in our

financial audit. We replaced a 25-year-old financial

management system that put us out of compliance with just

about every law with a new cloud-based financial management

system that helps us comply with every law, and balance our

books, and spend the taxpayers' money responsibly.

Last year, we did the best job, ever, of paying our bills

on time, and we paid the smallest amount of interest for late

payments, ever. We paid our small business contractors faster

than ever. And the percentage of contracting we are doing

with small businesses is the highest, ever.

We accomplished all of this by taking seriously President

Obama's direction to engage in evidence-based, data-driven

management.

The Government Accountability Office recently conducted a

survey of all managers in 24 executive branch departments and

agencies at the GS-13 level and higher. GAO asked these

federal managers a long list of questions that amounted to,

``does your agency or department use evidence-based, data-

driven decision making?'' The Labor Department beat all 24

federal agencies that were part of the survey. We lead the

federal government in Obama-style evidence-based, data-driven

management.

This impressive list of accomplishments reflects an agency that is back on track. It is a testament to the hard work of Secretary Solis, Secretary Perez, Seth Harris, the DOL leadership team, and the dedicated career staff that work for the agency across the country.

While he has moved on to new challenges in his professional life, our Nation owes a great debt of gratitude to Seth Harris for his leadership and for his passionate dedication to helping working families. I know Seth's work on these issues is far from done, and I look forward to continuing to work with him in his new roles in the years to come.

Mr. President, I have spoken on the floor of this body on a number of occasions about the impending retirement crisis facing this country. I know from my constituents that the dream of a secure retirement is growing fainter and fainter. In fact, the retirement income deficit--meaning, difference between what people have saved for retirement and what they should have at this point--is a staggering $6.6 trillion and growing. Today, half of Americans have less than $10,000 in savings, and only 14 percent are ``very confident'' they will have enough money for a comfortable retirement.

I am deeply concerned by these statistics. That is why, in 2013, I introduced legislation to tackle this challenge head on. My legislation, S. 567 the Strengthening Social Security Act

of 2013, would improve the most efficient, most effective retirement program we have--Social Security--in three ways. First, it would increase benefits by about $65 per month for all beneficiaries. Second, it would ensure that annual cost of living adjustments more accurately reflect the cost of living experienced by seniors by adopting the CPI- E. And, finally, it would remove the wage cap so that the payroll tax applies fairly to every dollar of wages. According to the Social Security actuaries, my proposal would increase benefits for current and future beneficiaries while also extending the life of the Social Security Trust Fund through 2049.

Recently, an organization that I have worked closely with for many years, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, launched a campaign in support of a proposal that would boost Social Security benefits, including my legislation. I deeply appreciate the support of the national committee, and commend them for their work to strengthen and expand Social Security. I look forward to continuing to work with them, and other supportive organizations, to confront our Nation's retirement crisis. Strengthening and expanding Social Security is the crucial first step.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce a bill to support teachers, paraprofessionals and especially students, students with challenging behaviors.

Last week I released a report titled ``Dangerous Use of Seclusion and Restraints in Schools Remains Widespread and Difficult To Remedy: Ten Case Studies.'' This report is the product of a 6-month investigation by my HELP Committee staff

The report highlights the continued use of seclusion and restraints in schools, the lack of information families have about these practices, and the inability, in many cases, of families to stop the use of them on their children.

We found that in many cases, families may not know their children are being secluded and restrained. In some cases children are being secluded and restrained for months at a time, multiple times a day, sometimes for many hours, all without the knowledge of their families.

We also found that families do not have the tools to stop these practices. Provisions of some of our education laws, such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, prohibit families from seeking redress and relief from the use of seclusion and restraints with their children unless they exhaust their due process options, which can take months or even years. This often leaves families with no choice but to remove their children from school in order to protect them.

Finally, the report found it is almost impossible for families to gather the information they need to prove harm and to stop the use of seclusion and restraints. The lack of access to information causes families to give up on their schools and there are many cases where families move to a new city or even out of state.

These events are not isolated incidents, as some claim. In March 2011, the U.S. Department of Education published the ``Civil Rights Data Collection Report'' that showed there were over 66,000 occurrences of seclusion and restraints during the 2009-2010 school year. In other words, there were 66,000 times when children were put at risk of injury, psychological trauma and death.

These incidents occur everywhere, even in my own state of Iowa. Last year, in a public residential school, at least three young women were secluded for up to 23 hours a day--in one case, for as long as nine months. If it were not for the good work of my state's Protection and Advocacy agency, Disability Rights Iowa, that practice might have continued indefinitely.

These practices aren't just ineffective, they can cause harm. Take for example 8-year-old Isabel Loeffler, who

was subjected to restraint and seclusion when she was living in Iowa. Isabel was locked in a seclusion room for up to three hours at a time on over 100 different occasions. She was held from behind and forced to draw with crayons, sometimes with four staff members holding her. When Isabel failed a task, she was secluded or restrained. The use of these practices made her behaviors worse, not better, so her parents withdrew her from school.

Injuries, both physical and psychological, are horrible enough, but at times the use of seclusion and restraints results in death. Jonathan King was secluded in an 8-by-8-foot concrete room in his Georgia school from the time he was a kindergartener. During one school year Jonathan was placed in a seclusion room, unobserved, 19 times over the course of 29 days for over an hour and a half.

His parents did not know this was happening to him.

On the day he died, his teacher had given him a rope to hold up his pants before she secluded him. Jonathan, who hated wearing a belt, had threatened to kill himself before. While he was in seclusion that day he hung himself with that rope. Jonathan was just 13-years-old.

It is time to put a stop to these abuses. We need make sure schools have access to the practices to serve our children well. The data show that too many teachers do not have the tools they need to help children with challenging behaviors. Too many parents do not know how their children are being treated at school. And too many children are being mentally and physically scarred because of the use of these harmful practices and the lack of knowledge about positive alternatives.

So I have come to the floor, today, to urge my colleagues to join with me in stopping these unconscionable practices. I come to ask that we work to provide teachers and administrators with the knowledge and skills they need to teach children in safe, supportive environments and to stop these violations of basic human rights. It is time to stop the systematic use of restraint and seclusion in our schools.

In the United States, we have regulations to protect people in hospitals, in nursing homes, and in psychological facilities from restraint and seclusion. But not in our schools. The last frontier for prohibiting seclusion and allowing restraint only in emergency situations is our classrooms.

This is why, today, I am introducing the Keeping All Students Safe Act. This bill prohibits the use of seclusion as well as mechanical and chemical restraints in schools. Period. Complete prohibition of these practices that have no educational or therapeutic benefits for children.

My bill also places strict limits on when, how, and by whom physical restraints may be used. Physical restraints could only be used in emergency situations. Not for so-called treatment. Not as discipline. Not as negative reinforcement. For emergencies only.

My bill would also create greater transparency so parents will know when an emergency situation happens and when a restraint has been used. It requires that schools meet with parents to explain the emergency and to plan for how to avoid emergencies in the future.

In addition, the bill allows families to file a civil action even if they have not exhausted their due process rights under IDEA. This will give families more power to stop the use of seclusion and restraints with their children.

There has been a lot of debate on whether it is right to implement a complete ban on seclusion in schools. I answer with an unequivocal yes. Putting a child in a locked room without supervision is absolutely wrong. Because when children are locked up, they frequently hurt themselves in frustration. Sometimes they hit their bodies against the wall until they are bruised and bloodied. Sometimes they vomit. Sometimes, as in the case of Jonathan King, they die.

Something is seriously wrong when a child suffers post-traumatic stress disorder after attending school. To lock a child up with no supervision is dangerous and, in many instances, can amount to acute psychological torture.

Proponents of the use of seclusion and restraints call them ``effective practices'' or ``useful techniques.'' But they are not. A child does not learn how to hold herself still, to listen more attentively, or to do her work by having her teacher lock her up, strap her down, or sit on her. Using euphemisms and politically correct terms to describe these practices does not disguise their barbarity and harmfulness. By no stretch of the imagination can sitting on a child be about educating.

There are alternatives. We know that school-wide, preventive practices can reduce and eliminate the use of seclusion and restraints. Ten years ago, at the Centennial School in Lehigh, PA, a school that serves children with the most challenging behaviors, the use of restraints was pervasive; over 1,000 occurrences per school year. Now, through the leadership of Dr. Michael George and the systematic use of preventive strategies, restraints are used less than 5 times a year and only in the most severe of emergency situations, only by trained personnel, and never as punishment or behavior management.

The Keeping All Students Safe Act will make positive behavioral interventions more widely available for educators. It will provide supports to schools to improve the school climate and culture through evidence-based practices and data-driven decision-making. The bill calls for better data collection on the use of seclusion and restraints in order to document their occurrence and efforts to eliminate them. The bill calls for mandatory reporting so that parents will know why, when, and how physical restraints are used on their children.

We know that teachers want to teach and to keep all their students safe. Let us give them the skills and knowledge to prevent challenging behaviors, and when they occur, to respond to them in the most effective ways possible.

If Isabel's teachers had the support, knowledge and training that the Keeping All Students Safe Act will make available, they could have identified the interventions she needed to be successful. They could have known what reinforcements worked for her. And they could have known what triggers would make her behavior worse. Instead of locking her in a closet, where she wet herself and hit herself in the head, Isabel's teachers could have fundamentally improved her educational experience, helping her to reach her potential.

All children have the right to be safe. Parents entrust schools to protect their children and help them to flourish. Let us make good on that trust by prohibiting seclusion and making the use of restraint so uncommon that it is only used in emergency situations. I urge my colleagues to join with me to protect all students, and to ensure that all educators have the tools they need to keep all of students safe.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce a bill to support teachers, paraprofessionals and especially students, students with challenging behaviors.

Last week I released a report titled ``Dangerous Use of Seclusion and Restraints in Schools Remains Widespread and Difficult To Remedy: Ten Case Studies.'' This report is the product of a 6-month investigation by my HELP Committee staff

The report highlights the continued use of seclusion and restraints in schools, the lack of information families have about these practices, and the inability, in many cases, of families to stop the use of them on their children.

We found that in many cases, families may not know their children are being secluded and restrained. In some cases children are being secluded and restrained for months at a time, multiple times a day, sometimes for many hours, all without the knowledge of their families.

We also found that families do not have the tools to stop these practices. Provisions of some of our education laws, such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, prohibit families from seeking redress and relief from the use of seclusion and restraints with their children unless they exhaust their due process options, which can take months or even years. This often leaves families with no choice but to remove their children from school in order to protect them.

Finally, the report found it is almost impossible for families to gather the information they need to prove harm and to stop the use of seclusion and restraints. The lack of access to information causes families to give up on their schools and there are many cases where families move to a new city or even out of state.

These events are not isolated incidents, as some claim. In March 2011, the U.S. Department of Education published the ``Civil Rights Data Collection Report'' that showed there were over 66,000 occurrences of seclusion and restraints during the 2009-2010 school year. In other words, there were 66,000 times when children were put at risk of injury, psychological trauma and death.

These incidents occur everywhere, even in my own state of Iowa. Last year, in a public residential school, at least three young women were secluded for up to 23 hours a day--in one case, for as long as nine months. If it were not for the good work of my state's Protection and Advocacy agency, Disability Rights Iowa, that practice might have continued indefinitely.

These practices aren't just ineffective, they can cause harm. Take for example 8-year-old Isabel Loeffler, who

was subjected to restraint and seclusion when she was living in Iowa. Isabel was locked in a seclusion room for up to three hours at a time on over 100 different occasions. She was held from behind and forced to draw with crayons, sometimes with four staff members holding her. When Isabel failed a task, she was secluded or restrained. The use of these practices made her behaviors worse, not better, so her parents withdrew her from school.

Injuries, both physical and psychological, are horrible enough, but at times the use of seclusion and restraints results in death. Jonathan King was secluded in an 8-by-8-foot concrete room in his Georgia school from the time he was a kindergartener. During one school year Jonathan was placed in a seclusion room, unobserved, 19 times over the course of 29 days for over an hour and a half.

His parents did not know this was happening to him.

On the day he died, his teacher had given him a rope to hold up his pants before she secluded him. Jonathan, who hated wearing a belt, had threatened to kill himself before. While he was in seclusion that day he hung himself with that rope. Jonathan was just 13-years-old.

It is time to put a stop to these abuses. We need make sure schools have access to the practices to serve our children well. The data show that too many teachers do not have the tools they need to help children with challenging behaviors. Too many parents do not know how their children are being treated at school. And too many children are being mentally and physically scarred because of the use of these harmful practices and the lack of knowledge about positive alternatives.

So I have come to the floor, today, to urge my colleagues to join with me in stopping these unconscionable practices. I come to ask that we work to provide teachers and administrators with the knowledge and skills they need to teach children in safe, supportive environments and to stop these violations of basic human rights. It is time to stop the systematic use of restraint and seclusion in our schools.

In the United States, we have regulations to protect people in hospitals, in nursing homes, and in psychological facilities from restraint and seclusion. But not in our schools. The last frontier for prohibiting seclusion and allowing restraint only in emergency situations is our classrooms.

This is why, today, I am introducing the Keeping All Students Safe Act. This bill prohibits the use of seclusion as well as mechanical and chemical restraints in schools. Period. Complete prohibition of these practices that have no educational or therapeutic benefits for children.

My bill also places strict limits on when, how, and by whom physical restraints may be used. Physical restraints could only be used in emergency situations. Not for so-called treatment. Not as discipline. Not as negative reinforcement. For emergencies only.

My bill would also create greater transparency so parents will know when an emergency situation happens and when a restraint has been used. It requires that schools meet with parents to explain the emergency and to plan for how to avoid emergencies in the future.

In addition, the bill allows families to file a civil action even if they have not exhausted their due process rights under IDEA. This will give families more power to stop the use of seclusion and restraints with their children.

There has been a lot of debate on whether it is right to implement a complete ban on seclusion in schools. I answer with an unequivocal yes. Putting a child in a locked room without supervision is absolutely wrong. Because when children are locked up, they frequently hurt themselves in frustration. Sometimes they hit their bodies against the wall until they are bruised and bloodied. Sometimes they vomit. Sometimes, as in the case of Jonathan King, they die.

Something is seriously wrong when a child suffers post-traumatic stress disorder after attending school. To lock a child up with no supervision is dangerous and, in many instances, can amount to acute psychological torture.

Proponents of the use of seclusion and restraints call them ``effective practices'' or ``useful techniques.'' But they are not. A child does not learn how to hold herself still, to listen more attentively, or to do her work by having her teacher lock her up, strap her down, or sit on her. Using euphemisms and politically correct terms to describe these practices does not disguise their barbarity and harmfulness. By no stretch of the imagination can sitting on a child be about educating.

There are alternatives. We know that school-wide, preventive practices can reduce and eliminate the use of seclusion and restraints. Ten years ago, at the Centennial School in Lehigh, PA, a school that serves children with the most challenging behaviors, the use of restraints was pervasive; over 1,000 occurrences per school year. Now, through the leadership of Dr. Michael George and the systematic use of preventive strategies, restraints are used less than 5 times a year and only in the most severe of emergency situations, only by trained personnel, and never as punishment or behavior management.

The Keeping All Students Safe Act will make positive behavioral interventions more widely available for educators. It will provide supports to schools to improve the school climate and culture through evidence-based practices and data-driven decision-making. The bill calls for better data collection on the use of seclusion and restraints in order to document their occurrence and efforts to eliminate them. The bill calls for mandatory reporting so that parents will know why, when, and how physical restraints are used on their children.

We know that teachers want to teach and to keep all their students safe. Let us give them the skills and knowledge to prevent challenging behaviors, and when they occur, to respond to them in the most effective ways possible.

If Isabel's teachers had the support, knowledge and training that the Keeping All Students Safe Act will make available, they could have identified the interventions she needed to be successful. They could have known what reinforcements worked for her. And they could have known what triggers would make her behavior worse. Instead of locking her in a closet, where she wet herself and hit herself in the head, Isabel's teachers could have fundamentally improved her educational experience, helping her to reach her potential.

All children have the right to be safe. Parents entrust schools to protect their children and help them to flourish. Let us make good on that trust by prohibiting seclusion and making the use of restraint so uncommon that it is only used in emergency situations. I urge my colleagues to join with me to protect all students, and to ensure that all educators have the tools they need to keep all of students safe.

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