Floor Statements

Parliamentary inquiry: What bill are we on right now?

As I understand, there is 1 minute on each side?

Mr. President, I will claim our first minute, obviously.

Mr. President, the bill before us now, like the House GOP bill, fails the first policy test of do no harm. It is worse for students over the long term than if we even let the rate double. These are CBO projections. If we, again, adopt the next bill which leaves the interest rates at 3.4 percent--that is this sign here--that is what students would pay in interest. If we let it double--this is the white line. If we adopt the Republican bill, as you can see, in 2 years students will be paying more over the next 10 years in interest rates than if we even let it double.

Here is the bottom line on it: If we keep the rates at 3.4 percent, a student

who starts college next year, goes for 4 years, borrows the maximum of $19,000, will pay $3,510 in interest over 10 years. That is the life of a Stafford loan. If we adopt the Republicans' bill, that same student borrowing that same amount of money will pay $6,590 in interest over 10 years. This is the worst possible approach. You shouldn't reduce the deficit on the backs of students who can't even discharge this in bankruptcy.

Mr. President, throughout my career in public service I have been committed to ensuring that all children in this country receive a quality education. Today, I join my Democratic colleagues on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which I chair, in introducing a bill to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, ESEA, which has become better known in recent years as the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB. In my view, our bill will appropriately redefine the Federal role in education in this country and will focus our collective efforts to improve the lives of our most vulnerable children.

I want to start with a few words about the Federal role in education, since ESEA, in large measure, determines that role. While it is certainly true that education is primarily a State and local function, the Federal Government also plays an important role, and a well- educated citizenry is clearly in the national interest. A cardinal Federal role is to ensure all Americans, regardless of race, gender, national origin, religion and disability have the same equal opportunity to a good education. Likewise, the Constitution expressly states that our national government was formed to ``promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.'' The general welfare is greatly endangered when the populace is not adequately educated. And, education is critical to liberty.

ESEA was first passed in 1965 in order to provide aid to States and school districts to improve education for children from low-income families. And in 1975, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, later renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, to assist States and districts in educating children with disabilities. For more than 40 years, the Federal government has trained its focus on the mission that all children should have the chance to fulfill their full potential.

The No Child Left Behind Act represented a departure from previous reauthorizations of ESEA. Lawmakers felt compelled to be more prescriptive with States to ensure that they improved their low- performing schools and focused on closing pernicious student achievement gaps. NCLB defined ``adequate yearly progress'' for schools and districts; it required districts to put aside money to implement public school choice and tutoring in schools identified for improvement; it included a list of rigorous interventions for low- performing schools and an additional category of ``restructuring'' for the most chronically low-performing schools with even more severe consequences. NCLB reflected good intentions. However, as we have seen over the course of the past 12 years, those good intentions did not translate to good policy on-the-ground. Many States lowered expectations for students with the standards and assessments they developed. Many local

schools and teachers were branded failing when some of their students did not meet the rigid benchmarks the Federal Government had set--even though in many instances students had made substantial progress. Districts felt hamstrung by the requirement to spend money on reforms that simply did not meet the needs of many students.

The Secretary of Education has given schools a reprieve from these onerous requirements through a flexibility agreement that States have undertaken voluntarily. While this reflects a positive change for the time being, it is no substitute for a new law. The actions of the Secretary, while laudable, may only last as long as this administration. What will happen in 2016? Will the flexibility agreements stay in place or will States be forced to revert to the requirements of what will then be a 15-year-old law that reflects old thinking?

The bill I am introducing along with HELP Committee Democrats follows a different course than NCLB, and one similar to the flexibility agreements instituted by the U.S. Department of Education. We ask for a system of shared responsibility with States and school districts. I believe that we are entering an era in which the Federal Government can work in partnership with States to improve our Nation's schools, while continuing to provide a backstop to avoid returning to old ways. Our bill gets rid of AYP, but sets Federal parameters for State-and locally-designed accountability systems. These systems must: cover all students, including students with disabilities and English learners; continue to measure and report on the performance of all schools; expect sufficient progress for all schools and subgroups of students; and provide for local interventions in low-performing schools or schools with low-achieving student subgroups beyond the lowest performing 5 percent. States that have received a waiver from the Secretary in the past two years can continue to operate under the agreements they made. States without a waiver will develop accountability plans that set schools on a path to attain the same levels of student achievement as the top 10 percent of schools in their State. However, if States have a different accountability system in mind, they can develop one that is equally ambitious to the ones above, subject to approval by the Secretary of Education, an important safeguard on the quality and integrity of these systems.

Our bill sets the high bar of ensuring that students who graduate from high school are college- and career-ready. It narrows the Federal focus to turning around persistently low-achieving schools and our Nation's dropout factories--those schools that graduate less than 60 percent of their students--as well as schools with significant student achievement gaps.

Our bill also asks States to put greater emphasis on the learning of children in the early years because we know that so many of our children, particularly children from low-income families, have gaps in learning before they even enter the school door. I have often said that learning begins at birth and the preparation for learning begins before birth. For the first time in the law's history, it is a purpose of Title I to provide children access to high-quality early learning experiences so that they come to school ready to learn. Our bill also encourages States to begin providing full-day kindergarten if they do not do so already. It also asks States to have, or establish, early learning and development guidelines that describe what children should know and be able to do before they enter kindergarten so that States can address gaps in learning as early as possible.

Our bill also takes the significant step of closing the ``comparability loophole'' so that funds provided through Title I of ESEA will finally serve as additional dollars for our neediest students, and Title I schools will get their fair share of Federal resources. It also provides districts with more flexibility in how States and districts spend their Federal funds while ensuring that the resources designated to serve our most disadvantaged students get to those students. The bill creates a Professional Growth and Improvement System that requires the development of rigorous and fair teacher and principal evaluations, and provides these critical school staff with the support they need to continually improve teaching and learning. It also leverages opportunities for more children to access high quality early learning programs and adds new protections for some of our most vulnerable children--homeless students and students in foster care--so that they will be better served by schools.

Our bill strategically consolidates programs and focuses grant funds on a smaller number of programs to allow for greater flexibility, and supports districts in extending the school day and year, strengthening their literacy, science, math or technology programs, fostering safe and healthy students, and offering a more well-rounded curriculum that includes the arts and physical education. It invests in effective programs to train and support principals and teachers for high-need schools. And, it fosters innovation through new programs like Race to the Top, Investing in Innovation, and Promise Neighborhoods.

I believe this is a very good bill and I am proud of our efforts. We owe it to our kids and our nation to produce a law that provides States and districts with the certainty, support and resources they need to make meaningful strides in improving our educational system. To that end, I would note that historically, education policy in Congress has been done in a bipartisan fashion. I want to give appropriate credit to the Ranking Member of the HELP Committee, the distinguished senior Senator from Tennessee, Senator Alexander. We worked in good faith for many months to attempt to forge an agreement on a path forward. However, in the end, there were certain fundamental issues on which we could not agree. That is why, along with other HELP Committee Democrats, I have decided to move forward with a Democratic bill. It is my strong hope that Senate Republicans will recognize the significant changes that we have made in this bill to address their concerns, and will work with us to reconcile remaining disagreements so that together we can pass a law that provides children with a greater chance at reaching their full potential. It is the duty and responsibility of members of Congress in both houses to replace the No Child Left Behind Act with a new and better law.

This bill represents significant change, and change is difficult. We must work to together to move from a culture of minimal compliance with Federal requirements to one of shared innovation, shared responsibility and success for all students. I look forward to working towards this new partnership and to the next chapter of an effective Federal role in promoting educational excellence and equity.

Mr. President, throughout my career in public service I have been committed to ensuring that all children in this country receive a quality education. Today, I join my Democratic colleagues on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which I chair, in introducing a bill to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, ESEA, which has become better known in recent years as the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB. In my view, our bill will appropriately redefine the Federal role in education in this country and will focus our collective efforts to improve the lives of our most vulnerable children.

I want to start with a few words about the Federal role in education, since ESEA, in large measure, determines that role. While it is certainly true that education is primarily a State and local function, the Federal Government also plays an important role, and a well- educated citizenry is clearly in the national interest. A cardinal Federal role is to ensure all Americans, regardless of race, gender, national origin, religion and disability have the same equal opportunity to a good education. Likewise, the Constitution expressly states that our national government was formed to ``promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.'' The general welfare is greatly endangered when the populace is not adequately educated. And, education is critical to liberty.

ESEA was first passed in 1965 in order to provide aid to States and school districts to improve education for children from low-income families. And in 1975, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, later renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, to assist States and districts in educating children with disabilities. For more than 40 years, the Federal government has trained its focus on the mission that all children should have the chance to fulfill their full potential.

The No Child Left Behind Act represented a departure from previous reauthorizations of ESEA. Lawmakers felt compelled to be more prescriptive with States to ensure that they improved their low- performing schools and focused on closing pernicious student achievement gaps. NCLB defined ``adequate yearly progress'' for schools and districts; it required districts to put aside money to implement public school choice and tutoring in schools identified for improvement; it included a list of rigorous interventions for low- performing schools and an additional category of ``restructuring'' for the most chronically low-performing schools with even more severe consequences. NCLB reflected good intentions. However, as we have seen over the course of the past 12 years, those good intentions did not translate to good policy on-the-ground. Many States lowered expectations for students with the standards and assessments they developed. Many local

schools and teachers were branded failing when some of their students did not meet the rigid benchmarks the Federal Government had set--even though in many instances students had made substantial progress. Districts felt hamstrung by the requirement to spend money on reforms that simply did not meet the needs of many students.

The Secretary of Education has given schools a reprieve from these onerous requirements through a flexibility agreement that States have undertaken voluntarily. While this reflects a positive change for the time being, it is no substitute for a new law. The actions of the Secretary, while laudable, may only last as long as this administration. What will happen in 2016? Will the flexibility agreements stay in place or will States be forced to revert to the requirements of what will then be a 15-year-old law that reflects old thinking?

The bill I am introducing along with HELP Committee Democrats follows a different course than NCLB, and one similar to the flexibility agreements instituted by the U.S. Department of Education. We ask for a system of shared responsibility with States and school districts. I believe that we are entering an era in which the Federal Government can work in partnership with States to improve our Nation's schools, while continuing to provide a backstop to avoid returning to old ways. Our bill gets rid of AYP, but sets Federal parameters for State-and locally-designed accountability systems. These systems must: cover all students, including students with disabilities and English learners; continue to measure and report on the performance of all schools; expect sufficient progress for all schools and subgroups of students; and provide for local interventions in low-performing schools or schools with low-achieving student subgroups beyond the lowest performing 5 percent. States that have received a waiver from the Secretary in the past two years can continue to operate under the agreements they made. States without a waiver will develop accountability plans that set schools on a path to attain the same levels of student achievement as the top 10 percent of schools in their State. However, if States have a different accountability system in mind, they can develop one that is equally ambitious to the ones above, subject to approval by the Secretary of Education, an important safeguard on the quality and integrity of these systems.

Our bill sets the high bar of ensuring that students who graduate from high school are college- and career-ready. It narrows the Federal focus to turning around persistently low-achieving schools and our Nation's dropout factories--those schools that graduate less than 60 percent of their students--as well as schools with significant student achievement gaps.

Our bill also asks States to put greater emphasis on the learning of children in the early years because we know that so many of our children, particularly children from low-income families, have gaps in learning before they even enter the school door. I have often said that learning begins at birth and the preparation for learning begins before birth. For the first time in the law's history, it is a purpose of Title I to provide children access to high-quality early learning experiences so that they come to school ready to learn. Our bill also encourages States to begin providing full-day kindergarten if they do not do so already. It also asks States to have, or establish, early learning and development guidelines that describe what children should know and be able to do before they enter kindergarten so that States can address gaps in learning as early as possible.

Our bill also takes the significant step of closing the ``comparability loophole'' so that funds provided through Title I of ESEA will finally serve as additional dollars for our neediest students, and Title I schools will get their fair share of Federal resources. It also provides districts with more flexibility in how States and districts spend their Federal funds while ensuring that the resources designated to serve our most disadvantaged students get to those students. The bill creates a Professional Growth and Improvement System that requires the development of rigorous and fair teacher and principal evaluations, and provides these critical school staff with the support they need to continually improve teaching and learning. It also leverages opportunities for more children to access high quality early learning programs and adds new protections for some of our most vulnerable children--homeless students and students in foster care--so that they will be better served by schools.

Our bill strategically consolidates programs and focuses grant funds on a smaller number of programs to allow for greater flexibility, and supports districts in extending the school day and year, strengthening their literacy, science, math or technology programs, fostering safe and healthy students, and offering a more well-rounded curriculum that includes the arts and physical education. It invests in effective programs to train and support principals and teachers for high-need schools. And, it fosters innovation through new programs like Race to the Top, Investing in Innovation, and Promise Neighborhoods.

I believe this is a very good bill and I am proud of our efforts. We owe it to our kids and our nation to produce a law that provides States and districts with the certainty, support and resources they need to make meaningful strides in improving our educational system. To that end, I would note that historically, education policy in Congress has been done in a bipartisan fashion. I want to give appropriate credit to the Ranking Member of the HELP Committee, the distinguished senior Senator from Tennessee, Senator Alexander. We worked in good faith for many months to attempt to forge an agreement on a path forward. However, in the end, there were certain fundamental issues on which we could not agree. That is why, along with other HELP Committee Democrats, I have decided to move forward with a Democratic bill. It is my strong hope that Senate Republicans will recognize the significant changes that we have made in this bill to address their concerns, and will work with us to reconcile remaining disagreements so that together we can pass a law that provides children with a greater chance at reaching their full potential. It is the duty and responsibility of members of Congress in both houses to replace the No Child Left Behind Act with a new and better law.

This bill represents significant change, and change is difficult. We must work to together to move from a culture of minimal compliance with Federal requirements to one of shared innovation, shared responsibility and success for all students. I look forward to working towards this new partnership and to the next chapter of an effective Federal role in promoting educational excellence and equity.

Mr. President, when Richard Bender retires at the end of this month, the Senate will say farewell to one of its most respected, talented, and accomplished staff members. And I personally will be saying farewell to my longest serving legislative counselor.

They say that there are no indispensable people here in Washington. Don't believe it. For the last three and a half decades, Rich Bender has been my indispensable person--a staffer with an encyclopedic knowledge of parliamentary procedure, the legislative process, the Federal budget, as well as the rules and traditions of this body.

I am by no means the only Senator who has found Richard indispensable. In fact, he is a legend among Senators and staffers alike. Many times, the distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, has come to me with some version of this request: Tom, I am having trouble with this bill. Opponents are raising all kinds of legislative and parliamentary hurdles. Have Bender give me a call. And, by the way, Leader

Reid asking you for advice on parliamentary procedure is about like Wynton Marsalis asking you for advice on how he can play the trumpet better.

In my Senate office, Richard has managed a broad portfolio, including budget and taxes, infrastructure, economic development, and a good share of appropriations. He has completed more than 37 years in public service in Congress, beginning in 1975 as a special assistant to Iowa Senator John Culver. In 1977, when I was still in the House of Representatives, he came to work in my congressional office in Ames, where he met his future wife, Laura Forman. Richard moved to my Washington office in 1980. He has been with me, now, for three and a half decades, making him the longest serving Harkin staffer on record.

Richard often says, with pride, that he is the guy in the office who handles asphalt and cement. What those two items translate into are new roads and bridges, revitalized downtowns, economic development, jobs and opportunity. Cities across Iowa, from Dubuque to downtown Des Moines and across to western Iowa, all bear abundant evidence of Richard's excellent work over the decades.

I have never encountered a staffer who can match Richard's mastery of the appropriations process--not just the know-how and know-who of appropriations, but even more importantly the tenacity and persistence required to advance specific projects over the course of many years and sometimes for more than a decade.

I don't know how many times folks in Iowa have thanked me for things that Richard played a huge role in getting done. Let me name just a few of them.

He deserves special credit for his many contributions to making downtown Des Moines the attractive, economically vibrant urban landscape it is today, including the downtown loop on the Martin Luther King, Jr., Parkway, as well as projects like Riverpoint and the Science Center, all of which have spurred development on the south side of town. He played a similar role in assisting the revitalization of Dubuque by securing funds for the brilliant development of the city's Mississippi waterfront.

Richard is fond of describing roads, rivers, and canals as the ``arteries and veins of commerce,'' and he has been devoted to securing robust investments in essential infrastructure projects all across Iowa. I would mention, for example, Federal funding for the Des Moines to Burlington four-lane highway, and Highway 61 improvement in eastern Iowa.

Twice during Richard's tenure in my office, he has played a critical role in helping Iowa to recover from catastrophic floods. Following the devastating weather and flooding in 1993, he helped to secure major Federal funding to help Iowa cities, towns, and farms to recover. Likewise, after the once-in-a-century flood of 2008, Richard dedicated himself to securing resources to help Cedar Rapids, Iowa City, and many other communities to rebuild better than ever.

Let me mention several other achievements:

Richard played a key role in defeating a 1994 appropriations amendment that would have severely damaged ethanol's expansion in the U.S. gasoline market. The vote on the motion to table was 50 to 50, with the Vice President casting the deciding ``aye'' vote.

He secured vital funding for airport expansion and upgrading in Des Moines and at other Iowa airports.

Richard played the key role in securing nearly one-half billion dollars to upgrade USDA's National Animal Disease Center at Ames.

He obtained Federal funds for the High Trestle Bridge over the Des Moines River on the recreational trail between Ankeny and Woodward.

Earlier this year, he successfully persuaded the Army Corps of Engineers to keep the lower Mississippi River open for navigation during a time of persistently low water.

Thanks to Richard's dogged efforts, we were able to secure funding for the new Federal courthouse in Cedar Rapids.

These accomplishments are Richard Bender's living legacy.

And no recounting of Richard's legacy in Iowa would be complete without mentioning his central role in devising and implementing the modern Iowa caucuses system. In 1971, Richard was working as a staffer for the Iowa Democratic Party, which was seeking a way to increase the active involvement of rank-and-file members in choosing our party's Presidential candidate. The party also needed a timely and effective way of reporting voting results. Richard's creativity, as well as his training in mathematics and statistics, made him the key player in developing the Iowa Democratic Party caucuses. Today, the caucuses are little changed from what he developed four decades ago.

Richard Bender is the quintessential selfless public servant. For him, it is never about personal gain or glory; it is about serving others. Nobody works harder. Nobody puts in longer hours. And nobody produces more consistent results than Richard.

Indeed, I also add a debt of gratitude to Richard's wonderful wife, Laura, and his beloved son, Michael. They, too, have sacrificed as Richard has spent such long hours both in the office and working at home on weekends and in the evening. Lots of people, when they retire, say that they are looking forward to spending much more time with their family. Richard really means it. I know that he has big plans for Laura and Michael, including travel, in the years ahead.

It is difficult to find words that do justice to how profoundly grateful I am to Richard for his wise counsel and loyal service on my staff over the last three and a half decades. In addition, on behalf of my colleagues here in the Senate as well as in the House, so many of whom have also benefited from his counsel, I want to thank him for his exceptional service to the Congress and the American people.

Richard, I am deeply grateful to you for a job extraordinarily well done. I join with the entire Senate family in wishing you, Laura, and Michael much happiness in the years ahead.

Madam President, with the recent death of Dr. Elbert B. Smith--known to his friends simply as ``E.B.''--I lost a much beloved mentor, advisor, and friend.

Obituaries in the Washington Post and elsewhere have captured the essential facts of his life. Since 1990, he was professor emeritus at the University of Maryland. He served in the Navy in World War II, earned his master's degree and Ph.D. at the University of Chicago, and taught at Iowa State University, among other colleges, before joining the faculty at Maryland in 1968. Over the years, he also served as a Fulbright professor at the University of Tokyo and at Moscow State University, and elsewhere. He ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate as a Democrat in Iowa in 1962 and again in 1966.

What those factual obituaries fail to capture is the spirit of this remarkable man--his personal warmth, his talent for friendship, his great love of history and scholarship, and his passion for progressive causes.

He was one of the most influential people in my life, beginning in my years as an undergraduate at Iowa State University, where he was a history professor. He inspired me to get involved in politics and public service. When he ran for the U.S. Senate in 1962, I got involved in his campaign. And what a campaign it was--an unconventional, insurgent, student-run campaign against the status quo. This was 6 years before Senator Eugene McCarthy ran a similar campaign for President.

While working on his campaign, I was also president of Young Democrats at Iowa State, and we had just passed a resolution urging the admission of Communist China to the United Nations. Of course, this could have been an embarrassment to the Smith campaign. But to his great credit, E.B. said: ``That is your call, Tom, stick to your guns, I'll stand by you.'' That is the kind of principled person he was.

During the campaign, E.B. went to Washington to have his endorsement photograph taken with President Kennedy. There is a picture of E.B. presenting JFK with a copy of his scholarly biography of Senator Thomas Hart Benton, titled ``Magnificent Missourian.'' The reason E.B. chose this gift, of course, was that Thomas Hart Benton was one of the eight Senators that Kennedy included in his book ``Profiles in Courage.''

E.B. lost that 1962 election, but only very narrowly, against the longtime incumbent Senator Bourke B. Hickenlooper. But that campaign was revealing of the kind of man he was: a straight-shooter, a person of great integrity, serious but with a sense of humor, a fighter for the little guy, standing up for civil rights and economic justice.

Fast forward a decade. In 1972, I was fresh out of law school. Ruth and I moved back to Ames, and, frankly, we were flat broke. E.B. allowed us to live rent free in a house that he owned in Ames. With that house as campaign headquarters, I ran for Congress again in 1972, with a student-run, insurgent campaign modeled after E.B.'s 1962 effort. I lost, but we did well enough to run again in 1974, and win.

When I arrived in Washington in late 1974 as a newly elected Representative, E.B. and his wife Jean were living in College Park, where he was teaching at the University of Maryland. My wife Ruth was serving then as Story County attorney, and had to stay back in Iowa. The Smiths generously allowed me to live with them for the next 3 years. I commuted back to Iowa on weekends.

From his days in the Navy, E.B. loved to sail and was an expert sailor. Many a time he took me out on the Chesapeake Bay on his boat. I always felt that he liked it best when the weather was cold and foul, with the rain pouring down. The rest of us would be huddled down below, and E.B. would be up top, steering the boat, having a great time. It reminded him fondly of his days as a Navy deck officer in the Atlantic during the war. Over the decades during my time here in Washington, one of my great joys has been my sailing outings with E.B.

Of course, the other great joy of E.B.'s life was Jean, his wife of 58 years, their five children, nine grandchildren, and eight great- grandchildren. After Jean died in 2002, E.B. found another wonderful partner--coincidentally, also named Jean--who filled his last years with much happiness.

E.B. Smith was a dear friend and an invaluable mentor. He imbued me with the ideal that politics and public service are honorable callings. He always said to me: Don't worry about losing, do what is right, stick up for your principles.

I feel truly blessed to have had the friendship and counsel of E.B. Smith for so many years. He touched not only my life, but the lives of so many others all across the globe. He died one day short of his 93rd birthday, after a full, active, and accomplished life. Through his scholarship, generosity, and simple human decency, he made the world a better place.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in executive session on Wednesday, May 22, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to mark-up S. 959, Pharmaceutical Compounding Quality and Accountability Act; S. 957, Drug Supply Chain Security Act; the nomination of Mark Gaston Pearce, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board; the nomination of Richard F. Griffin, Jr., to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board; the nomination of Sharon Block, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board; and the nomination of Harry I. Johnson III, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board.

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact the Committee at (202) 224-5375.

Madam President, our inland waterways are a large and crucial part of our Nation's transportation system and facilitate billions of dollars of economic activity each year. In Iowa, agricultural producers as well as other shippers depend upon transportation along the Mississippi River and Missouri River to gain access to markets throughout the country and the world. The channels, locks, and dams throughout our inland waterways system are the infrastructural elements that allow the system to safely and efficiently support this activity. Without sustained financing through the inland waterways trust fund, this infrastructure cannot be properly maintained.

Today I want to bring my colleagues' attention to an amendment offered by Senator Casey to S. 601, the Water Resources Development Act. Senator Casey's amendment No. 854 takes an important step toward ensuring that the inland waterways trust fund can meet current and future infrastructure needs. While demands on the trust fund have greatly increased in recent years, the financing mechanism, a $0.20- per-gallon barge fuel tax, has not been raised since 1994. Senator Casey's amendment would strengthen the trust fund by raising the tax to $0.29. Many locks are already in such disrepair that catastrophic failure could occur in the near future. A lock failure would cause a loss of navigation along the system above that point, incurring serious economic losses. Not only is this fuel tax increase badly needed, it is widely supported by industries dependent upon our inland waterways, including the barge operating industry, which is directly impacted by the tax.

While it is unfortunate that Senator Casey's amendment could not be brought up for consideration, I hope its substance can become law in the coming months.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in executive session on Thursday, May 16, 2013, at 9:15 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to mark-up the nomination of Thomas E. Perez, to be Secretary of Labor.

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact the Committee at (202) 224-5375.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in open session on Tuesday, May 14, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``The ADA and Entertainment Technologies: Improving Accessibility from the Movie Screen to Your Mobile Device.''

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Alyssa Mowitz of the committee staff on (202) 228-3453.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my deep disappointment that once again Republican obstructionism and procedural tricks are preventing this body from carrying out its constitutional duty and responsibility, its obligation to consider important Presidential nominations.

This time the target is Mr. Tom Perez, the President's extremely qualified nominee to be Secretary of Labor.

The HELP Committee, which I chair, was scheduled to vote on his nomination at 4 o'clock this afternoon. Obviously, we are not doing that. An anonymous Republican has invoked an obscure procedural rule to prevent our committee from meeting at that scheduled time. This pointless obstructionism is extremely disturbing.

I would like to point out that we had previously been scheduled to vote on his nomination in my committee 2 weeks ago. In an effort to bend over backwards and to be accommodating to our colleagues who requested more time to consider documents related to the nomination, I deferred it for 2 weeks as sort of senatorial courtesy.

This time there is no allegation that they have had insufficient time for consideration, just delay for delay's sake on the nomination. Tom Perez has been before our committee since March. We have had our hearing, during which Mr. Perez fully answered all questions posed to him. I cut off no one. I allowed anyone to ask whatever questions they wanted.

Mr. Perez has met with any interested Senator personally and answered over 200 written questions for the record. It is an understatement to say his nomination has been thoroughly vetted. This continuing delay is unconscionable and only hurts the American workers and businesses that rely on the Department of Labor each and every day.

As our country continues to move down the road to economic recovery, the work of the Department of Labor is becoming even more vital to the lives of our working families. Whether it is making sure workers get paid the wages they deserve, helping returning veterans reenter the workforce, protecting our seniors' retirement nest eggs, ensuring that a new mother can care for her baby without losing her job, the Department of Labor helps families build the cornerstones of a middle- class life.

Now more than ever we need strong leadership at the Department to help strengthen our fragile recovery and build a stronger and revitalized American middle class. That is why this nomination is so important.

There has been a lot of public discussion about Mr. Perez but remarkably little of it has focused on what should be the central question before our committee today: Will Tom Perez be a good Secretary of Labor. The answer is unequivocally yes. Without question, he has the knowledge and experience needed to guide this critically important agency.

Through his professional experiences, and especially his work as Secretary of the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, he has developed strong policy expertise about the many important issues for American workers and businesses that come before the Department of Labor every day. He spearheaded major initiatives on potentially controversial issues, such as unemployment insurance reform and worker misclassification, while finding common ground between workers and businesses to build sensible, commonsense solutions.

He also clearly has the management skills to run a large Federal agency effectively. He was also an effective manager and a responsible steward of public resources, undertaking significant administrative and organizational reforms that made the Maryland DLLR more efficient and more effective.

His outstanding work in Maryland has won him the support of the business community and worker advocates alike. To quote from the endorsement letter of the Maryland Chamber of Commerce:

Mr. Perez proved himself to be a pragmatic public official

who was willing to bring differing voices together. The

Maryland Chamber had the opportunity to work with Mr. Perez

on an array of issues of importance to employers in Maryland,

from unemployment and workforce development to the housing

and foreclosure crisis. Despite differences of opinion, Mr.

Perez was always willing to allow all parties to be heard,

and we found him to be fair and collaborative. I believe that

our experiences with him here in Maryland bode well for the

nation. That is a pretty strong endorsement by a chamber of

commerce for a nominee whom the minority leader today on

the floor characterized as a ``crusading ideologue . . .

willing to do or say anything to achieve his ideological

ends.'' That is how he was characterized by the Republican

leader today, but the Maryland Chamber of Commerce didn't

seem to think so. So that grossly unfair characterization

by the Republican leader is manifestly inconsistent with

the experiences of the Republican leaders and businesses

that have actually worked with Tom Perez.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from businesses and Republican leaders demonstrating the strong bipartisan support for Mr. Perez's nomination. These people clearly disagree with the Republican leader's assessment of Mr. Perez's qualifications and character.

Indeed, I think Mr. Perez's character--his character--is exactly what qualifies him for this job--his character.

Tom Perez has dedicated his life to making sure every American has a fair opportunity to pursue the American dream. At the Maryland Department of Labor, he revamped the State's adult education system so more people could successfully train for better jobs and brighter futures. As the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he is right now, he has been a voice for the most vulnerable, and he has reinvigorated the enforcement of some of our most critical civil rights laws. He has helped more Americans achieve the dream of home ownership through his unprecedented efforts to prevent residential lending discrimination. He has helped to ensure that people with disabilities have the choice to live in their own homes and communities rather than only in institutional settings and to make sure people with disabilities receive the support and services they need to make independent living possible. He has stepped up the Department's efforts to protect the employment rights of servicemembers so our men and women in uniform can return to their jobs and support their families after serving their country.

I can tell you that Tom Perez is passionate about these issues. He is passionate about justice and about fairness, and I believe these are qualities that Tom Perez learned at the hand of his former employer here in the Senate, our former committee chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Ted Kennedy. But, as he explained in his confirmation hearing, he also learned from Senator Kennedy ``that idealism and pragmatism are not mutually exclusive.'' Mr. Perez knows how to bring people together to make progress on even controversial issues without burning bridges or making enemies. He knows how to hit the ground running and quickly and effectively become an agent of real change. That is exactly the kind of leadership we need at the Department of Labor. We need his vision, we need his passion, and we need, yes, his character at the helm of this important agency.

Allow me to state very clearly that while I know there has been generated controversy--not real controversy but generated controversy-- surrounding Mr. Perez's nomination, there is absolutely nothing that calls into question his ability to fairly enforce the law as it is written. There is absolutely nothing that calls into question his professional integrity or his moral character or his ability to lead the Department of Labor.

As I mentioned, Mr. Perez has been as open and aboveboard as he could possibly be throughout this entire confirmation process. He has met with any Member personally who requested a meeting. As I said, he appeared before our committee in a public hearing. He has answered more than 200 written questions. He has bent over backward to respond to any and all concerns raised about his work at the Department of Justice.

This administration--President Obama--has also been extraordinarily accommodating to any Republican colleague, especially to their concerns about Mr. Perez's involvement in the global resolution of two cases involving the city of St. Paul, MN--Magner v. St. Paul and Newell v. St. Paul. The administration has produced thousands of documents concerning these two cases. They have arranged for the interview of government employees. They have facilitated almost unprecedented levels of disclosure to alleviate any concern about his involvement in these cases.

As chairman of the committee, I have also tried to be as accommodating as possible, joining in requests for documents that I, quite frankly, thought were unnecessary but willing to acquire and postponing the executive session for 2 weeks to provide Members additional time for consideration.

All this extensive process has revealed is that Mr. Perez acted at all times ethically and appropriately to advance the interests of the U.S. Government. For example, with respect to the Magner and Newell matters, Mr. Perez consulted with both outside ethics and professional responsibility experts at the Department of Justice, and Mr. Perez acted within their guidelines at all times. It is no surprise that outside ethics experts have confirmed that Mr. Perez acted appropriately in these matters.

I would like to submit again for the Record letters and statements from several legal ethics experts and experts in the False Claims Act confirming that Mr. Perez's handling of the Magner and Newell cases was both ethical and appropriate. And I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these letters.

As Professor Stephen Gillers, who has taught legal ethics for more than 30 years at New York University School of Law, wrote in one of these letters, Mr. Perez's actions in these cases ``violate[d] no ethical rule that governs lawyers. He was acting in what he believed to be the best interests of his client, which is what lawyers are required to do.''

In short, Mr. Perez did his job at DOJ, and he did it well. When it comes down to it, I think the fact that he did his job well is probably the source of much of the generated controversy surrounding his nomination. Maybe some people just don't like Tom Perez precisely because he is passionate about enforcing our civil rights laws and has vigorously pursued such enforcement in his current position.

I take great issue with the minority leader's suggestion today that Mr. Perez doesn't follow the law or believe that it applies to him. I would respectfully suggest that the Republican leader needs to check his facts. To the contrary, Tom Perez has had a remarkable career as a result of a determination to make the promise of our civil rights statutes a reality for everyday Americans. Maybe these are some of the same laws that some colleagues sometimes would like to forget are on the books, but these laws matter. Voting rights matter. Fair housing rights matter. The rights of people with disabilities matter. These laws are part of what makes our country great. I am incredibly proud of the work Mr. Perez has done at the Department of Justice to make those rights a reality after years of neglect. He should be applauded, not vilified, for the service he has provided to this country.

Mr. President, it almost seems that when Mr. Perez's name came up, there was a controversy generated about these cases in St. Paul involving whistleblower types and that somehow he acted inappropriately and denied the government the ability to get back a couple hundred million dollars or so. That seemed to be a belief some of my colleagues on the other side had. So we looked into it. We went through all the documents, all the e-mails, and thousands of pages, with ethics lawyers both in the government and out. What we came up with was that Mr. Perez acted ethically and appropriately at all times. There is no ``there'' there. So the facts belie the belief, but it seems that the belief carries on and that somehow the belief trumps the facts.

Well, if some of my colleagues want to believe the worst about Tom Perez, they can believe that, but they have no facts to back it up. It is an unfounded belief. Is that what is going to guide this body in approving nominations for this President or any President--that if I believe something and I can get maybe some of my colleagues to join in and believe it, that is enough? That is sufficient to vilify a nominee, to try to tear him down?

What about the facts? Don't facts matter? Doesn't the record matter? Of course it does. And the facts, as proven time and time again, are that Mr. Perez acted ethically and appropriately at the Department of Justice at all times and especially in the two cases--Magner v. St. Paul and Newell v. St. Paul. That has been clearly brought forth, that he acted appropriately and ethically.

So I say to my colleagues on the other side, believe what you want, but that belief, mistaken as it is, should not be used to tear down a good person, to vilify a good person, to cast this person in a light which is totally false.

So, yes, Mr. President, there was an objection to our meeting today under this obscure rule of the Senate, but we have rescheduled the meeting for 1 week hence. So in 1 week we will meet again, and we will vote to report out the nomination of Tom Perez, and then we will come to the floor. Again, I hope that it won't be filibustered by my Republican colleagues but that we will be able to vote up or down on Mr. Perez based not upon what someone believes but what the facts are, what his record is, what his record has been both in local government, State government, and at the Department of Justice.

When you look at that record, it is an exemplary record of unstinting public service in the best interests of the civil rights and equal rights of our country. That is why, with his background, his experience, and his dedication to fairness and justice, the fact that he has actually worked in the Senate on the HELP Committee--the committee that has jurisdiction over the Department of Labor--gives tremendous weight to his background and insight into how to be a truly great Secretary of Labor.

So we will vote next week. I hope there are not other kinds of roadblocks--unfounded roadblocks--thrown into the path of his confirmation. We will do everything we can to make sure this good person takes his rightful place as our next Secretary of Labor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I was deeply disturbed several weeks ago to learn of the White House's plan to strip $332 million in critical funding from the Prevention and Public Health Fund and to redirect that money to educating the public about the new health insurance marketplaces and other aspects of implementing the Affordable Care Act.

No one is more interested in ensuring the successful implementation of the health insurance exchanges than I am. I chair that committee. I was working with both Senator Kennedy and Senator Dodd in formulating these aspects of the Affordable Care Act. But it is ill-advised and shortsighted to raid the prevention fund, which is making absolutely critical investments in preventing disease, saving lives, and keeping women and their families healthy.

Last year they took $5 billion from the prevention fund. I will get to that in a moment. So, again, in their raiding of this prevention fund, not only is it a case of misplaced priorities, it is frankly an outrageous attack on an investment fund that is saving lives by advancing wellness and prevention initiatives in communities all across America.

A major purpose of the Affordable Care Act is to begin to transform our current sick care system into a genuine health care system, one that is focused on saving lives through a greater emphasis on wellness, prevention, and public health. I have been saying for 20 years or more that we do not have a health care system in America, we have a sick care system.

When you think about it, if you get sick, you can get pretty good care in America. We have the best surgeons and best cancer clinics. If you are sick, there is probably no better place in the world to be than in America to get cured. But what we are lousy at is keeping you healthy in the first place and preventing illness, preventing diseases, preventing chronic conditions.

Every expert acknowledges that we will never reduce health care costs or have a healthier and more productive society until we have a major focus on prevention. However, I have no choice but to conclude that when it comes to prevention and wellness, some people in this administration just do not get it.

The prevention fund already has been a giant step forward for public health in our Nation. Typically, prevention and public health initiatives have in the past always been an afterthought. This means that important community-based interventions often go unsupported. The prevention fund, as part of the Affordable Care Act, is making it possible for us to make national investments in evidence-based programs that promote physical activity, improve nutrition, and reduce tobacco use.

This is not the time to mention all of the many ways this fund is already making Americans healthier. I want to mention several representative investments that are happening right now.

The prevention fund is already investing $226 million to reduce chronic diseases, including diabetes and heart disease. Heart disease disproportionately affects women. In fact, it is the No. 1 cause of death for women in this country. Some 42 million women in America are currently living with some form of heart disease.

The World Health Organization estimates that a staggering 80 percent of heart disease, diabetes, and stroke could be prevented as a result of changes in smoking, nutrition, and physical activity alone.

Moreover, this investment by the prevention fund is not only saving lives, it is also saving money. Right now, heart disease costs our Nation about $440 billion a year--$440 billion a year in health care costs from heart disease alone.

Cigarette smoking kills an estimated 173,000 women a year. If current smoking rates persist, more than 6 million kids living in the United States today will ultimately die from smoking.

This year the fund is supporting a second round of the highly successful media campaign called ``Tips From a Former Smoker.'' It is estimated that last year's campaign will save $70 million annually based on just the smokers who successfully quit in reaction to this 12- week ad campaign. These ads are extremely powerful and effective. Within 2 days of the first ad appearing last year, the number of calls to our quit lines tripled. So mark my words, these ads are going to save lives. In fact, the second phase of this ad campaign is expected to inspire half a million quit attempts and to help at least 50,000 Americans quit smoking forever.

Now, that is the $93 million for the anti-tobacco education and support campaign. As I pointed out, over 6 million kids--if we do not do something about it, 6 million kids today in America will die from smoking.

Let's talk about the immunization program. The prevention fund is investing in immunization programs that protect kids and save billions of dollars in downstream costs. For every dollar spent on childhood immunizations, Americans save $16 by avoiding the costs of treating preventable diseases. Furthermore, by ensuring that all adults get recommended routine vaccines, we can prevent 40,000 to 50,000 deaths annually. So the $82 million that was cut for immunizations in the prevention fund by the action by the White House could have saved our Nation up to $1.3 billion in unnecessary health care costs. Again, this is the very definition of penny wise and pound foolish budgeting.

Investments from the prevention fund are not just at the national level, they are also at the community level. The fund is helping States, cities, and towns to implement evidence-based programs that meet their particular local needs.

For example, the State of Illinois has made improvements to its sidewalks and has marked crossings in order to increase levels of student physical activity for students going to school. Because of these improvements, the number of students who are walking to school has doubled. Not only is this good for their health, it is expected to save the school system about $67,000 a year on bus costs.

In Florida, the school board of Miami Dade County will soon implement the Play, Eat, Succeed project in order to reduce the prevalence of childhood obesity among students with disabilities and children in the Head Start Program. The project will focus on improving nutritional habits, increasing physical activity levels, and achieving a healthy weight.

In California, the Los Angeles County Department of Health has worked with more than 100 clinical teams to provide accessible clinical preventive services to control high blood pressure and cholesterol, reaching approximately 200,000 adults just in Los Angeles County alone.

In my State of Iowa, the Black Hawk County Board of Health is working with the local agency on aging to implement the Better Choices, Better Health Program. This initiative is designed to help individuals who are living with chronic conditions to find practical ways to self-manage pain, fatigue, and to make healthier nutrition and exercise choices, to set realistic goals, to understand treatment options and communicate with family and health care providers about their condition.

I mention all of these to show that the prevention fund is not just top-down from Washington; we are trying to encourage communities, cities, towns, counties, and, yes, some States to do work on their own, to come up with innovative ideas on how to encourage people to live healthier lives, to prevent smoking, to, for instance, get more kids to walk to school. And this is a big problem. A lot of kids in America can walk to school, but they do not have sidewalks, they do not have safe passages to school, so they take a bus. Simple things like that are done at the local level with the prevention fund, and when local levels experiment and do things like this and they find that they work, then other people adopt it. To me, this is one of the key elements of the prevention fund. It is sort of letting a thousand flowers bloom, getting more ideas out there from people at the local level on what they can do, how they can buy into this.

What can they do, and how can they buy into this to have a good prevention and wellness program on the local level?

Let's look at the return on investment. We always wonder about the return on investment for the kind of money we spend in government. The prevention fund all across America is investing in proven locally developed programs, as I mentioned, that promote health and wellness, and they save lives. Not only is this improving our health outcomes but it will save us money.

According to a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Diabetes Prevention Program to prevent or delay nearly 885,000 cases of type 2 diabetes would save our health system about $5.7 billion over the next 25 years. The National Diabetes Prevention Program is a public-private partnership of health organizations that work together to prevent type 2 diabetes to life style change programs right in our home communities. Given that in 2007 diabetes alone accounted for about $116 billion in direct medical costs, it is all the more critical that we continue to invest in proven programs such as this.

I want to point out that for these investments, for every dollar we put in a childhood immunization series, it has been proven we saved $16.50. Yet if I am not mistaken, the White House is taking about $85 million out of this fund--penny wise and pound foolish.

Tobacco control programs: For every $1 we invest, we are saving $5. Chronic disease prevention: For every $1 we spend, we save $5.60. For workplace wellness programs: $3.27 for every $1 we spend. Any way you look at it, in all of these programs, just the return alone--not mentioning the productivity of people who are healthier, who don't smoke, who don't have chronic illnesses--their productivity is much higher than those who have chronic illnesses.

The list goes on and on. The Trust for America's Health released a study showing that a 5-percent reduction in the obesity rate could yield more than $600 billion in savings on health care costs over 20 years. Again, this is from the Trust for America's Health. A 5-percent reduction in the obesity rate, 5 percent only, could yield more than $600 billion in savings on health care costs over 20 years.

Studies such as this confirm what common sense tells us. Your mother was right; prevention is the best medicine for our bodies and for our budgets alike. That is why nearly 800 organizations have spoken against misguided efforts to slash or eliminate the prevention fund.

Despite ill-advised efforts to cut or eliminate the prevention fund, most Americans understand what is at stake. Prior to creation of the prevention fund, for every dollar spent on health care, 75 cents went to treating patients with chronic diseases, while only 4 cents was spent on efforts to prevent those diseases. Again, before the Affordable Care Act, 75 cents of every health care dollar was spent on treating you after you got sick. Only 4 cents was spent on preventing those diseases.

This chronic underinvestment has had devastating consequences. Nearly half of American adults have at least one chronic condition. Two-thirds of the increase in health care spending between 1987 and 2000 was due to increased prevalence of chronic diseases.

We had a briefing from three highly acclaimed medical practitioners 2 or 3 weeks ago, and they pointed out that two-thirds of the money we spend in Medicare goes for treating chronic illnesses--two-thirds.

When we talk about the money we are spending on Medicare and how do we control Medicare costs, some people say we have got to make it tougher for people to get Medicare or you have got to cut down on Medicare, when the answer is staring us right straight in the face: prevention and wellness programs. For elderly people who do have a chronic condition, there are interventions that will save us money and make their lives better through prevention and wellness programs. We know that. There are evidence-based programs which are proven to work.

The prevention fund gives us an unprecedented opportunity to bend the cost curve by jumpstarting the transformation of America into a true wellness society, a society that focuses on preventing disease, saving lives and saving money.

As I said, the fund is doing both; it is saving lives and saving money. To slash this fund as the White House intends to do is bad public policy and bad priorities. To take money from the prevention fund is to cannibalize the Affordable Care Act in ways that will both cost us money and lives. I think it is a violation of both the letter and the spirit of this landmark law. Again, one more time, we know prevention saves lives.

Cancer deaths: About 567,000 people die from cancer annually in the United

States. Fifty percent of those are preventable and much cheaper than all the long-term care costs, not to mention the devastation that happens in families' lives when a parent is lost to cancer.

Preventable diseases, heart disease, diabetes, and stroke: About 796,000 people die from heart disease, diabetes, and stroke annually in the United States. Eighty percent of those are preventable. Yet we are going to cut money from the prevention fund? It doesn't make sense.

Prior to the Senate adjourning for this last recess, I put a hold on Ms. Marilyn Tavenner's nomination to serve as the Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Ms. Tavenner, in her role as Acting Administrator, signed a directive in March that channeled critical funds away from prevention. I must say, as the chairman of the committee, and as the author of the prevention fund in the Affordable Care Act, I was never notified until the decision had been made. I was not consulted. No one was. It was just sort of signed away.

Again, I want to make it very clear the hold I put on Ms. Tavenner was not a secret hold. In fact, I don't believe in secret holds. Too often people put on secret holds and you don't know who is doing it. I would never do that. I issued my hold publicly. Why? In order to heighten public awareness of this administration's ill-advised policy decision to cut prevention money and hopefully to get the White House to start to reconsider. I wanted to give people in the White House the chance to understand that their assault on the prevention fund is shortsighted, destructive, and perhaps suggests other sources of funding for implementing and overseeing the marketplace.

Last year the administration, as I said, approved a $5 billion--and I am correct here--a $5 billion cut to the fund as part of the middle- class tax bill. That was last year. I thought after that we had an agreement that was not going to happen again, the clearer cut agreement.

Now the administration has made it clear they intend to move forward with even more cuts--$332 million this year--to the prevention fund. What we are seeing from the administration is, at best, mixed signals and, at worst, a betrayal of the letter and spirit of the Affordable Care Act.

I repeat, these are bad policy choices. This choice to take money out of the prevention fund will have negative serious consequences for the future health of the American people.

Again, I don't know and I am unsure as to who is giving advice to the President, but I want to say to President Obama, I think you are getting bad advice, bad advice on where the money is coming from and how it is affecting the prevention fund, and there are other sources of funding for the marketplace other than the prevention fund.

I want to make it clear I don't want to interfere with the important work of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. I also happen to believe Ms. Tavenner is very well qualified and strongly qualified to be the next Administrator. I believe it is urgent to have an effective leader at the helm of CMS as we enter a critical stage in implementing the Affordable Care Act.

Accordingly, I am removing my hold on her nomination. However, as I do so, I repeat, it is deeply disappointing and disturbing that the White House once again is raiding the Prevention and Public Health Fund.

I would hope Ms. Tavenner, in her future role as the head of the CMS, will understand that while she works for the President, advice and consent of the U.S. Senate might be something worth considering in her future actions. I hope and expect again that the White House will respect the intent of Congress in creating the prevention fund, not as an afterthought but as a critical feature of the Affordable Care Act-- every bit as critical as the exchanges, the marketplace, and everything else.

I hope the administration will join us in fighting for the prevention fund and in making smart, evidence-based investments in prevention and wellness. This is what real health reform is about. It is not about how you pay the bills. If all we are going to do in the Affordable Care Act is jiggle around on how we pay the bills, we are sunk. Real health reform is about changing our society away from a sick-care system to a true health care system, keeping people healthy, promoting wellness, having prevention programs at every level of society, in our schools, in our workplaces, and in our communities from the earliest moments of life, immunization programs. This is for those who are elderly, who may have a chronic condition but who can control that, at less cost and with healthier lives through good prevention and wellness programs. That is what true health reform is about, and it is our best bet for creating a healthier and more prosperous Nation. To that important end, the Congress and the White House should not be working at cross purposes. We should be working together. I say we must rededicate ourselves to the great goal of creating a reformed health care system that has a major focus on prevention and wellness, not just for a few but for all Americans. That is what the intention was of the Prevention and Public Health Fund.

As I say again, and I say very clearly, I don't know who is advising the President, but I think the President is getting bad advice. I understand the President has a lot on his plate, everything from Syria to Afghanistan--a lot. I understand that.

I hope that those in the White House who are advising the President would take a closer look and find some way of replenishing that $332 million and hopefully making some ironclad agreements that they are not going to raid the fund again next year.

I thought we had an agreement that last year was it, that $5 billion was it. I thought we had that agreement. I was operating under that assumption. Will we take more money out of the prevention fund again next year too to meet some exigency that may come up? That is what has been wrong with our sick-care system in the past. We are so focused on paying today's bills we don't focus on the future and how to keep people healthy. We just pay today's bills, keep paying the bills and paying the bills. Like clueless dodos, we wonder why health care costs are skyrocketing. It is because we don't focus on keeping people healthy in the first place.

So I will remove my hold on Ms. Tavenner, but I hope the administration will find a way to replenish that $332 million this year and make a firm commitment to not raiding this fund in the future.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in executive session on Wednesday, May 8, 2013, at 4 p.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to mark up the nomination of Thomas E. Perez, to be Secretary of Labor.

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact the Committee at (202) 224-5375.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in open session on Thursday, May 9, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Pharmaceutical Compounding: Proposed Legislative Solution.''

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

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in open session on Thursday, May 16, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Pending Nominations to the National Labor Relations Board.''

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Anna Porto of the committee staff on (202) 224-5441.

Mr. President, more than 20 years ago, family members of workers killed on the job joined with safety advocates to launch Workers Memorial Day--a day of remembrance and advocacy. To honor the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, April 28 was chosen as Workers Memorial Day.

The passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which created OSHA, was one of the monumental legislative achievements of the 20th century. This landmark legislation, passed over four decades ago, reflects the values that all Americans share: that workers shouldn't have to risk their lives to earn their livelihood, and that workers, employers, and the government must all work together to keep people safe and healthy on the job.

Since that time, workplace safety and health conditions have improved dramatically. In the year the OSH Act was enacted, our country saw 13,800 on-the-job deaths. Forty years later, in 2010, that number is down by more than 60 percent. It is without dispute that this legislation has saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of American workers in its 40-year lifespan, a remarkable accomplishment.

In addition to saving lives, OSHA saves our country money. The total financial cost of job injuries and illnesses is enormous--estimated at $250 billion to $300 billion a year. Preventing illnesses and injuries before they happen makes economic sense, in addition to being the right thing to do.

So today, on Worker's Memorial Day, we celebrate the success of OSHA. But we also must acknowledge its limitations. Too many workers remain at serious risk of injury, illness or death on the job, as demonstrated by the recent fertilizer explosion in West Texas that killed at least 14 and injured over 200. In 2011, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 4,693 workers were killed on the job--an average of 13 workers every day--and nearly 3 million nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses were reported that same year. In our great State of Iowa, 93 workers died on the job in 2011. Additionally, 43 Iowans died from injuries sustained while working, and untold numbers of Iowans were injured from exposures in the workplace. We absolutely can--and must-- do better.

That's why I am a co-sponsor of the Protecting America's Workers Act, a piece of legislation that would build on OSHA's successes and save the lives of countless additional workers. The bill makes commonsense reforms to bring our workplace safety laws into the 21st century, with minimal burden on the vast majority of employers that comply with the law.

One critical aspect of the Protecting America's Workers Act is that it will enhance the protection provided to workers who blow the whistle on unsafe conditions in the workplace. OSHA does not have the necessary resources to inspect every workplace in the country on a regular basis, so whistleblowers play an essential role in identifying dangerous conditions. Because OSHA enforcement is aided by whistleblowers, it is in all of our interests to protect whistleblowers from unfair retaliation so they are not afraid to come forward. But the whistleblower provision in OSHA has not been significantly amended or improved since it was enacted and has fallen far behind similar retaliation protections in other worker protection, public health, and environmental laws. The Protecting America's Workers Act will remedy that problem by strengthening whistleblower protections so more workers will feel comfortable reporting dangerous conditions and work environments can improve for all.

In addition to protecting whistleblowers, the Protecting America's Workers Act also extends OSHA protections to more workers, increases penalties for employers who break the law, enhances public accountability, and clarifies the duty of employers in providing a safe work environment. These changes together comprise a critical step towards providing a safer workplace for every worker in our country, and I plan to do everything possible to fight for this important legislation.

While we have made tremendous progress in that last 40 years under OSHA, there is much more work to be done. All Americans have the right to a safe workplace, and we should not rest until all of our fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, families, and friends can go to work each day knowing they will come home safely again each night.

Mr. President, for many years we have witnessed with great regret the aging of America's farmers and ranchers and the decline in the number of agricultural operations in our country. Simply put, our nation will be stronger and better if more beginning farmers and ranchers are able to succeed those who inevitably retire and leave the business. We need new generations of farmers and ranchers to produce critical supplies of food, fuel, and fiber, to care for and conserve our soil, water, and other natural resources, and to contribute as members of healthy and vibrant rural communities. Many people across America yearn for an opportunity to get a start and build a successful agricultural operation, yet they face daunting challenges and obstacles.

The legislation we are introducing today will help families and individuals across our nation apply their talents, motivation, and dedication to start and continue farm and ranch operations and revitalize rural America. Beginning farmers and ranchers will benefit from practical assistance in this bill, including effective training and mentoring, better access to and careful use of credit, enhanced support for conservation, and help in starting and succeeding in profitable enterprises such as value-added businesses.

We have previously adopted a number of successful initiatives to assist beginning farmers and ranchers, including in the 2002 and 2008 farm bills enacted

when I was proud to serve as chairman of the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee. This bill will extend, build upon, and strengthen existing programs and initiatives and ensure their continued effectiveness and success.

A key feature of the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act of 2013 is to extend and strengthen the beginning farmer and rancher development program, which we enacted in 2008. In this program, USDA provides competitively-awarded grants to qualified organizations that deliver training and education for beginning farmers and ranchers. This new legislation makes it a new priority for USDA to issue grants to support agricultural rehabilitation and vocational training for military veterans and to deliver training and education to help veterans who are beginning farmers and ranchers. The bill also would extend and increase mandatory funding for this development program to $20 million in each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.

This legislation also strengthens in several ways the assistance USDA provides to enable beginning farmers and ranchers to assemble the financial resources they need to start and build a successful operation. It codifies in statute a microloan program in which young beginning farmers and ranchers who qualify could borrow up to $35,000 for operating expenses at reduced interest rates and with simplified paperwork. Also included in this bill is mandatory funding at $5 million a year to carry out the individual development accounts pilot program that was enacted in the 2008 farm bill. Grants under this pilot program would support State-level individual development account initiatives to help beginning farmers and ranchers build savings that can then be invested in their agricultural operations. Several other provisions of the bill update and improve the existing USDA programs to help beginning farmers and ranchers obtain loans for operating expenses, land purchases, and conservation practices.

To encourage and assist beginning farmers and ranchers in maintaining and adopting sound conservation practices, the bill extends and strengthens several initiatives enacted in previous farm bills. Of special importance, the bill expands the options and financial incentives for maintaining conservation on land that comes out of Conservation Reserve Program, CRP, contracts if it is leased or sold to beginning farmers or ranchers. Beginning farmers and ranchers would also receive more help through the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program, enhanced whole-farm conservation planning and technical assistance, and increased advanced conservation cost-share payments.

Other features of the bill will help beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers better understand and utilize insurance programs and risk management systems. In order to help beginning farmers and ranchers build markets and increase income through adding value to their commodities, the bill enhances opportunities for beginning farmers and ranchers to receive USDA value- added producer grants and provides new, increased mandatory funding for such grants. It also creates a special USDA veterans agricultural liaison position to focus upon helping veterans understand and benefit from USDA programs, especially those for beginning farmers and ranchers.

In conclusion, I am proud of the initiatives we have previously enacted to help beginning farmers and ranchers create and pursue opportunities and realize their goals and dreams. By building on the success of the existing programs, this legislation will lend more help to beginning farmers and ranchers and in doing so strengthen American agriculture, our rural communities, and our nation as a whole. I am grateful to the cosponsors of this bill and urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, for many years we have witnessed with great regret the aging of America's farmers and ranchers and the decline in the number of agricultural operations in our country. Simply put, our nation will be stronger and better if more beginning farmers and ranchers are able to succeed those who inevitably retire and leave the business. We need new generations of farmers and ranchers to produce critical supplies of food, fuel, and fiber, to care for and conserve our soil, water, and other natural resources, and to contribute as members of healthy and vibrant rural communities. Many people across America yearn for an opportunity to get a start and build a successful agricultural operation, yet they face daunting challenges and obstacles.

The legislation we are introducing today will help families and individuals across our nation apply their talents, motivation, and dedication to start and continue farm and ranch operations and revitalize rural America. Beginning farmers and ranchers will benefit from practical assistance in this bill, including effective training and mentoring, better access to and careful use of credit, enhanced support for conservation, and help in starting and succeeding in profitable enterprises such as value-added businesses.

We have previously adopted a number of successful initiatives to assist beginning farmers and ranchers, including in the 2002 and 2008 farm bills enacted

when I was proud to serve as chairman of the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee. This bill will extend, build upon, and strengthen existing programs and initiatives and ensure their continued effectiveness and success.

A key feature of the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act of 2013 is to extend and strengthen the beginning farmer and rancher development program, which we enacted in 2008. In this program, USDA provides competitively-awarded grants to qualified organizations that deliver training and education for beginning farmers and ranchers. This new legislation makes it a new priority for USDA to issue grants to support agricultural rehabilitation and vocational training for military veterans and to deliver training and education to help veterans who are beginning farmers and ranchers. The bill also would extend and increase mandatory funding for this development program to $20 million in each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.

This legislation also strengthens in several ways the assistance USDA provides to enable beginning farmers and ranchers to assemble the financial resources they need to start and build a successful operation. It codifies in statute a microloan program in which young beginning farmers and ranchers who qualify could borrow up to $35,000 for operating expenses at reduced interest rates and with simplified paperwork. Also included in this bill is mandatory funding at $5 million a year to carry out the individual development accounts pilot program that was enacted in the 2008 farm bill. Grants under this pilot program would support State-level individual development account initiatives to help beginning farmers and ranchers build savings that can then be invested in their agricultural operations. Several other provisions of the bill update and improve the existing USDA programs to help beginning farmers and ranchers obtain loans for operating expenses, land purchases, and conservation practices.

To encourage and assist beginning farmers and ranchers in maintaining and adopting sound conservation practices, the bill extends and strengthens several initiatives enacted in previous farm bills. Of special importance, the bill expands the options and financial incentives for maintaining conservation on land that comes out of Conservation Reserve Program, CRP, contracts if it is leased or sold to beginning farmers or ranchers. Beginning farmers and ranchers would also receive more help through the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program, enhanced whole-farm conservation planning and technical assistance, and increased advanced conservation cost-share payments.

Other features of the bill will help beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers better understand and utilize insurance programs and risk management systems. In order to help beginning farmers and ranchers build markets and increase income through adding value to their commodities, the bill enhances opportunities for beginning farmers and ranchers to receive USDA value- added producer grants and provides new, increased mandatory funding for such grants. It also creates a special USDA veterans agricultural liaison position to focus upon helping veterans understand and benefit from USDA programs, especially those for beginning farmers and ranchers.

In conclusion, I am proud of the initiatives we have previously enacted to help beginning farmers and ranchers create and pursue opportunities and realize their goals and dreams. By building on the success of the existing programs, this legislation will lend more help to beginning farmers and ranchers and in doing so strengthen American agriculture, our rural communities, and our nation as a whole. I am grateful to the cosponsors of this bill and urge all of my colleagues to support it.