Floor Statements

Madam President, I was honored to recommend to the President that he nominate Jane Kelly to serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Today I encourage my colleagues to vote for her confirmation, which will be the first vote at noon.

Let me begin by thanking Senator Leahy and his staff for their hard work in advancing Ms. Kelly's nomination in such a timely manner. I also thank my senior colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, for his invaluable support and assistance. For all the years we have served together, Senator Grassley and I have cooperated in a spirit of good will on judicial nominations in our State. I am grateful that tradition has continued.

Jane Kelly possesses all the qualifications necessary to assume the responsibilities of a Federal appellate judge. Before recommending Ms. Kelly to the President, I reviewed a very strong field of candidates for this position. She stood out as a person of truly outstanding intellect and character, with a reputation as an extremely talented lawyer with a deep sense of compassion and fairness. Not surprisingly, she enjoys wide bipartisan support from the Iowa legal community.

Judge Michael Melloy, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, and whose seat on the Eighth Circuit Ms. Kelly is nominated to fill, said Ms. Kelly ``is very intelligent and thoughtful.''

Judge David Hansen, who was President George H.W. Bush's nominee to serve on the Eighth Circuit and for whom Ms. Kelly clerked, said: ``She is a forthright woman of high integrity and of honest character'' who ``will be a welcome addition to the court.''

I might also point out for the record that both of those nominees under Republican Presidents I was proud to support, under the leadership of Senator Grassley.

Federal District Court Judge Stephanie Rose remembered Ms. Kelly ``has a great blend of personality, skills and common sense to make a great lawyer and judge.''

The American Bar Association gave her a unanimous ``qualified'' rating. Ms. Kelly is a credit to all of us who have chosen to be in public service. She earned her bachelor's degree summa cum laude from Duke, served as a Fulbright Scholar, and received her J.D. cum laude from Harvard Law School. After law school she was a law clerk to Judge Donald Porter of the District Court of South Dakota and to Judge David Hansen on the Iowa Eighth Circuit. She could easily have commanded a big salary with a top law firm, but instead for over 20 years she has opted for public service and long hours as a Federal public defender. We are fortunate she seeks to continue her public service to Iowa and our Nation by serving as a Federal judge.

Let me conclude with two additional notes about Ms. Kelly's nomination. First, if confirmed, Ms. Kelly will only be the second female judge in the history of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, a court established in 1891. While 56 men have sat on that court, to date there has only been one woman, Diana Murphy of Minnesota. President Obama has nominated approximately 100 former prosecutors to the Federal bench, including one I recommended, former U.S. attorney Stephanie Rose, to the Southern District of Iowa. Among recent Presidents that is the highest percentage of former prosecutors to be nominated to the Federal bench. These are all outstanding attorneys and dedicated public servants.

As Judge Melloy recently noted with respect to Ms. Kelly: ``It will be good to have someone from the public defender realm on the bench.''

Ms. Kelly has served for more than 20 years in the Federal defender's office, where she has argued hundreds of cases on behalf of indigent clients. She has fought tirelessly to ensure that the rights of all are protected, and she has worked to give meaning to the phrase above the Supreme Court, ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' This is a critically important perspective that she will bring to the court.

As an aside, it strikes me as especially fitting that Ms. Kelly, a career public defender, has been nominated for the Federal bench this year as we observe the 50th anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright. As we all know, that landmark decision recognized that every person accused of a crime, no matter how poor, is guaranteed the right to counsel. At its core, Gideon is the promise of justice for all, including our most vulnerable citizens. This is an ideal to which Ms. Kelly has dedicated her entire legal career.

Jane Kelly is superbly qualified to serve as the U.S. Court of Appeals judge for the Eighth Circuit. I urge all of my colleagues to support her nomination and confirmation.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I strongly support the Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety Act. This bill brings the Nation's mine health and safety laws up to date, gives mine safety officials the ability to effectively investigate and shut down habitually dangerous mines, and holds mine operators accountable for putting their workers in unnecessary danger.

It has been over 3 years since April 5, 2010, when a massive explosion ripped through Massey Energy's Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia, tragically killing 29 miners. As the son of a coal miner, I continue to feel these losses very deeply, on a very personal level. My heart goes out to the family and coworkers of every worker who is killed or injured on the job. Too many of these tragedies are preventable, and we should not rest until the day comes when no hard- working American has to sacrifice his or her life for a paycheck.

The Upper Big Branch catastrophe spurred numerous investigations, and the resulting reports have yielded insight into specific ways that the government can act to improve the health and safety of our Nation's miners. Under the leadership of Joe Main, the Mine and Safety Health Administration has already taken many such important steps. One of their bold new safety initiatives that flowed from the Upper Big Branch explosion was to overhaul the ``pattern of violations'' process, which targets the worst actors in the mining industry. The pattern of violations regulation addresses a root cause of the Upper Big Branch disaster by strengthening worker protections at mines where operators are repeatedly and flagrantly disregarding safety rules. It is a substantial step forward that will help address the problems at our most dangerous mines before disaster strikes. And MSHA has made similar progress on other recommendations stemming from the Upper Big Branch disaster. Indeed, according to a March 31, 2013, report from the Labor Department's Office of Inspector General, MSHA has already implemented or is on track to timely address all of the 100 recommendations with deadlines from the investigative teams that studied the Upper Big Branch explosion.

I applaud these efforts wholeheartedly, and I am pleased to mark our Nation's progress in mine safety reform. On-the-job deaths of miners reached a record low in 2012 of 35. But 35 deaths means 35 brothers, sons, uncles, and fathers were stolen away from their families last year--a number that is still far too high. Catastrophes like the Upper Big Branch explosion make it clear that our work here is unfinished.

To prevent yet another disaster and more unnecessary deaths, Congress must do its part. It is time for the Senate to take action and ensure that a disaster like the Upper Big Branch explosion will never happen again. We need to strengthen the oversight system for the most dangerous mines, fortify penalties for operators who willfully put miners at risk, and make sure miners are protected if they raise safety concerns. And that is why I strongly support the Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety Act of 2013. This bill is an important step in making good on an obligation we have to health and safety of our courageous miners and their families.

This bill stands for some fundamental principles I believe are shared by all Americans.

We believe that every American deserves to go to work without fearing for his or her life.

We believe that responsible businesses that put safety first shouldn't have to compete with businesses that prioritize a quick buck over the safety of their employees.

We believe that employers who put workers' lives at risk should face serious consequences that will force them to change their ways.

We believe that companies shouldn't be able to hide behind high priced lawyers and convoluted corporate structures to avoid being held accountable for their actions.

We believe that the critical agencies charged with protecting workers' lives should have all the tools they need to get the job done.

We believe that whistleblowers are the first line of defense in safe workplaces and deserve strong protection from discrimination and retaliation.

The Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety Act of 2013 reflects these core principles and includes effective policies to achieve them. Its passage would be a major step forward for workplace safety.

This legislation also makes common sense reforms to the Occupational Safety and Health Act, OSHA, which has not been significantly updated since it was passed over 40 years ago. For example, whistleblower protections under the OSH Act are toothless and unfairly tilted against workers

who risk their career to protect the public welfare. This bill makes essential changes to ensure that workers are protected, including lengthening OSHA's 30-day statute of limitation for whistleblowers, providing for reinstatement while the legal process unfolds for cases with an initial finding of merit and giving the worker the right to file their own claim in court if the government does not investigate the claim in a timely manner.

The bill also strengthens criminal and civil penalties that, at present, are too weak to protect workers. Under current law, an employer may be charged--at most--with a misdemeanor when a willful violation of OSHA leads to a worker's death. Under the Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety Act of 2013, felony charges are available for an employer's repeated and willful violations of OSHA that result in a worker's death or serious injury. The bill also updates OSHA civil penalties--which have been unchanged since 1990--and sets a minimum penalty of $50,000 for a worker's death caused by a willful violation.

In addition to toughening sanctions for employers who needlessly expose their employees to risk, the bill makes sure that the government is responsive to workers when investigating charges. It guarantees victims the right to meet with the person investigating the claim, to be notified of and receive copies of reports or citations issued in the investigation, and to be notified of and have the right to appear at proceedings related to their case. Victims of retaliation should not suffer the double indignity of being ignored by government officials charged with protecting them.

I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support the Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety Act of 2013. This important bill would take a tremendous step forward for mine safety and could ultimately save the lives of thousands of hard-working Americans.

Mr. President, I strongly support the Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety Act. This bill brings the Nation's mine health and safety laws up to date, gives mine safety officials the ability to effectively investigate and shut down habitually dangerous mines, and holds mine operators accountable for putting their workers in unnecessary danger.

It has been over 3 years since April 5, 2010, when a massive explosion ripped through Massey Energy's Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia, tragically killing 29 miners. As the son of a coal miner, I continue to feel these losses very deeply, on a very personal level. My heart goes out to the family and coworkers of every worker who is killed or injured on the job. Too many of these tragedies are preventable, and we should not rest until the day comes when no hard- working American has to sacrifice his or her life for a paycheck.

The Upper Big Branch catastrophe spurred numerous investigations, and the resulting reports have yielded insight into specific ways that the government can act to improve the health and safety of our Nation's miners. Under the leadership of Joe Main, the Mine and Safety Health Administration has already taken many such important steps. One of their bold new safety initiatives that flowed from the Upper Big Branch explosion was to overhaul the ``pattern of violations'' process, which targets the worst actors in the mining industry. The pattern of violations regulation addresses a root cause of the Upper Big Branch disaster by strengthening worker protections at mines where operators are repeatedly and flagrantly disregarding safety rules. It is a substantial step forward that will help address the problems at our most dangerous mines before disaster strikes. And MSHA has made similar progress on other recommendations stemming from the Upper Big Branch disaster. Indeed, according to a March 31, 2013, report from the Labor Department's Office of Inspector General, MSHA has already implemented or is on track to timely address all of the 100 recommendations with deadlines from the investigative teams that studied the Upper Big Branch explosion.

I applaud these efforts wholeheartedly, and I am pleased to mark our Nation's progress in mine safety reform. On-the-job deaths of miners reached a record low in 2012 of 35. But 35 deaths means 35 brothers, sons, uncles, and fathers were stolen away from their families last year--a number that is still far too high. Catastrophes like the Upper Big Branch explosion make it clear that our work here is unfinished.

To prevent yet another disaster and more unnecessary deaths, Congress must do its part. It is time for the Senate to take action and ensure that a disaster like the Upper Big Branch explosion will never happen again. We need to strengthen the oversight system for the most dangerous mines, fortify penalties for operators who willfully put miners at risk, and make sure miners are protected if they raise safety concerns. And that is why I strongly support the Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety Act of 2013. This bill is an important step in making good on an obligation we have to health and safety of our courageous miners and their families.

This bill stands for some fundamental principles I believe are shared by all Americans.

We believe that every American deserves to go to work without fearing for his or her life.

We believe that responsible businesses that put safety first shouldn't have to compete with businesses that prioritize a quick buck over the safety of their employees.

We believe that employers who put workers' lives at risk should face serious consequences that will force them to change their ways.

We believe that companies shouldn't be able to hide behind high priced lawyers and convoluted corporate structures to avoid being held accountable for their actions.

We believe that the critical agencies charged with protecting workers' lives should have all the tools they need to get the job done.

We believe that whistleblowers are the first line of defense in safe workplaces and deserve strong protection from discrimination and retaliation.

The Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety Act of 2013 reflects these core principles and includes effective policies to achieve them. Its passage would be a major step forward for workplace safety.

This legislation also makes common sense reforms to the Occupational Safety and Health Act, OSHA, which has not been significantly updated since it was passed over 40 years ago. For example, whistleblower protections under the OSH Act are toothless and unfairly tilted against workers

who risk their career to protect the public welfare. This bill makes essential changes to ensure that workers are protected, including lengthening OSHA's 30-day statute of limitation for whistleblowers, providing for reinstatement while the legal process unfolds for cases with an initial finding of merit and giving the worker the right to file their own claim in court if the government does not investigate the claim in a timely manner.

The bill also strengthens criminal and civil penalties that, at present, are too weak to protect workers. Under current law, an employer may be charged--at most--with a misdemeanor when a willful violation of OSHA leads to a worker's death. Under the Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety Act of 2013, felony charges are available for an employer's repeated and willful violations of OSHA that result in a worker's death or serious injury. The bill also updates OSHA civil penalties--which have been unchanged since 1990--and sets a minimum penalty of $50,000 for a worker's death caused by a willful violation.

In addition to toughening sanctions for employers who needlessly expose their employees to risk, the bill makes sure that the government is responsive to workers when investigating charges. It guarantees victims the right to meet with the person investigating the claim, to be notified of and receive copies of reports or citations issued in the investigation, and to be notified of and have the right to appear at proceedings related to their case. Victims of retaliation should not suffer the double indignity of being ignored by government officials charged with protecting them.

I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support the Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety Act of 2013. This important bill would take a tremendous step forward for mine safety and could ultimately save the lives of thousands of hard-working Americans.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today along with my colleague from Vermont to introduce a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the so-called chained CPI should not be used for the purpose of calculating Social Security benefits or benefits for disabled veterans.

As we work to reduce the deficit in a balanced and responsible manner, many have discussed changing the measure of inflation used to calculate the cost-of-living allowances to a measure of inflation called the chained CPI.

Now, some claim that the chained CPI is a more accurate measure of inflation because it takes into account the fact that consumers may change their spending behavior and substitute items with lower priced increases for items with higher priced increases. As a result of this feature, the chained CPI results in a lower measure of inflation.

All of this may seem very technical, but the impact of requiring Social Security or veterans disability COLAS--cost-of-living adjustments--to be based on the chained CPI is anything but technical. It will have real and negative impacts on our seniors and those who become disabled as a result of service in the Armed Forces. In fact, the most adversely impacted would be the oldest and the poorest. I do not think anything could be more unfair or inappropriate or unnecessary.

As this first chart shows, the chained CPI is a real cut in Social Security benefits. According to Social Security Works, this policy would reduce annual Social Security benefits for the average worker at age 75 by $658 a year, by age 85 by $1,147 a year, and by age 95 by $1,622 a year. Over on this side of the chart we see the cumulative cut; in other words, what would happen over the years. From age 65 to 75 people would lose about $4,600, by age 85 they would lose $13,900, and by age 95 they would lose $28,000.

I think a couple things this chart shows is that people are penalized for living longer--the longer they live, the more they are penalized.

Now, one might say: Well, $658 a year by the time you are age 75, that does not sound like a lot. Yes, not to some of us, not to us with our incomes. Look at the kind of retirement programs we have. If you are in the upper quintile, of course, that does not seem like much. But, again, if we look at a second chart I have, we will see who really kind of gets hurt, and it is the poorer you are.

Let's put it this way: Let's say you are 65, and your total income is less than $12,554 a year. That puts you below the poverty line. The total amount of your income that comes from Social Security is 84.3 percent. Well, you might think, if you are making less than that, wouldn't all your money come from Social Security? Well, the answer is yes, but--and I question people about this--if you are making that little amount of money, and you are over 65, you are probably working at some part-time job. Maybe you are baby-sitting, maybe you are cleaning houses, maybe you are a greeter at a store. You are probably doing something to add to your income, but it would only amount to about 16 percent. Most of it comes from Social Security.

We can see from this chart, even after you get up to $20,000 a year, it is about the same. About 84 percent of your money comes from Social Security. So if you take a cut in Social Security, and you are lower income, that is where you get whacked the most.

Of course, when you get up here to the fifth quintile, you are making more than $57,957 a year. Only 17 percent of your income comes from Social Security. So you say, well, if you took $600-some a year from that, yes, you can probably afford it. But even if you look at up to $57,000 a year in the fourth quintile, almost half--43.5 percent--of your total income comes from Social Security. So even if you are making $30,000, $35,000 a year, after age 65 half of your income comes from Social Security.

So, again, when you start making these kinds of cuts in the chained CPI, you might say: Well, it is only $658 a year. For someone in the lower quintiles, that is like a month's worth of food, perhaps 6 weeks' worth of food. Tell me that does not have an effect. Of course it has an effect.

If you are in the upper income, you probably do not have that much to worry about. That is why the pernicious effect of chained CPI is that the longer you live, the more you are penalized; and the lower your income, the bigger whack you are taking out of your total income. So, again, as people get older, they are more likely to have depleted all their sources of retirement income, assuming they have any to begin with.

So a couple of facts I think are pertinent: First, today only one in five Americans has a defined benefit pension that will last until the day they die--one in five. When I first came to Congress it was one in two. One out of every two Americans had a defined

benefit pension that would last them until the day they died. Now it is one in five, and it is getting less all the time.

Second--and this startles a lot of people--50 percent of the American populace have less than $10,000 in savings--less than $10,000. One out of every two Americans has less than $10,000 in savings. Well, you can see, if you have that when you retire, that is going to be gone pretty soon, so then you are going to rely, again, strictly on Social Security.

So when you put those two facts together--four out of five have no pension, and half have less than $10,000 in savings--then you see that soon after you retire, the only thing you have left is Social Security.

So it is already hard enough now for millions of people hoping to retire, but then you put chained CPI in there, and you really are hitting the oldest and the poorest.

So, again, I know people are saying: Well, we have to do something to save Social Security for those in the future. Well, I agree with that. That is why whenever I see an honest assessment of Social Security for the future, an honest assessment that says Social Security cannot continue to exist as it is, well, I agree with that--as it is. But then there are two approaches. Do you whack the benefits or do you increase the revenues that come into Social Security?

Two different approaches. You do not have to cut the benefits. In fact, I would say that by talking about chained CPI, the signal you are sending to the younger generation is: Well, maybe when you get there we will whack it some more.

A lot of young people are saying, I do not know if Social Security is going to be there for me when I get that age. When they hear people talking about chained CPI and cutting this, they are right to be worried whether we are going to keep our promise to this next generation that we will have a Social Security system they can rely on and count on.

So what is to be done? Well, last year I introduced legislation that would basically extend the life of the Social Security trust fund to 2050 and give a $65-a-month increase to every Social Security recipient, and yet extend the life of it for over 18 more years.

How do we do that? Very simply. We raise the wage cap for people who pay into Social Security from $113,000 a year, which it is now. Over 10 years we raise it and do away with it after 10 years.

There is another approach too. The National Academy of Social Insurance, NASI, did a poll earlier this year. They asked: Would you be willing to go from 6.2 percent paying into Social Security to 7.2 percent, a 1-percent increase over 20 years, if that would help secure Social Security? Seventy percent of Republicans and Democrats said yes. Over 20 years, a 1-percent increase, that is nothing.

But if you were to take that and raise the wage cap, you could increase Social Security payments by $65 a month and secure Social Security for up to 75 years. It seems to me if you want to send a message to the young people about the sanctity and stability of Social Security, you would say that rather than we are going to cut, we are going to have this so-called chained CPI.

As I said, I know it sounds technical. But it is not technical at all. I once likened chained CPI to an anchor chain. If you are standing on the boat and the anchor chain gets around your ankle and someone throws the anchor overboard, where are you going? You are going down. That is what chained CPI does. The older you get, the more you get hit on. The poorer you are, the more you get hit.

So, again, this idea that we have got to somehow cut benefits, have this chained CPI in order to save Social Security is wrong. It is wrong. There are other ways of doing it that would be widely, broadly supported by the American people. Go out and ask any group, ask any group of seniors, do you think we ought to raise the wage cap so someone who is making $500,000 a year pays in at the same rate as someone who is making $50,000 a year? Well, of course. That is not the case now. You make $50,000 a year, you pay into Social Security on every dime you make. If you make $500,000 a year, you are only paying in on the first about 20 cents of every dollar you make. After that you do not pay into Social Security.

I think the average American would say, that is not fair. What is good for someone making $100,000 a year ought to be the same for someone making $1 million a year. So there are other ways of securing Social Security. This chained CPI sends the wrong message to young people. It exacerbates the concern young people have, is Social Security going to be there when I retire?

I always tell them: Do you believe the U.S. Government will exist when you retire? They say: Well, yes. I say: If that is the case, Social Security will be there, because it is backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government.

What are we supposed to do? Are we supposed to cut that full faith and credit, and tell the young people, it will be there but we may take cuts here and there may be cuts there? What is a young person to think? Am I going to have what I think I am going to be able to have and count on Social Security?

This is a trust. My friend from Vermont is always talking about this is a trust fund. It is a trust. It does not add to the deficit. Think about the word trust. Social Security trust fund. You have got to be able to trust it. Young people need to be able to trust it, that it will be there for them. The best way to undermine that is to go to this chained CPI.

With that, I yield to my good friend who knows this issue better than just about anybody I know and who has fought so hard on behalf of Social Security and keeping that trust fund and keeping the trust in Social Security.

I yield the floor to Senator Sanders.

Would the Senator yield for a question?

First of all, I thank my colleague from Vermont for being a strong voice on this issue and on so many issues that affect the elderly and especially our veterans. The Senator is the chair of that committee.

I am always curious as to why it is that so many of the dark suits here in Washington are always after Social Security. I don't say there is some ill spirit there, although I will say I think the Senator might agree that there are some who would like to privatize Social Security. We know that. They have said that in the past--or partially privatize it.

It seems to me that so many people who get involved in this think it is just a little nick.

I saw a cartoon of a barber cutting somebody's hair. They had this huge ball of hair, and they were snipping just a couple of little hairs off and saying: That is all we are doing with chained CPI.

They think it is such a small thing. It always occurred to me that those people making the decisions, the dark suits, those are all people who probably have good pensions, good retirement systems. They are never going to want for anything. Yet somehow they just think, well, $658 bucks--that is not a big deal, up to 75. But, as the Senator pointed out, $658 in 1 year to someone whose income is $15,000--that could be a month's worth of food, 6 weeks' worth of food.

That is a big whack. I would ask the Senator, again, if he has any thoughts----

On why is it that we can't listen to people and come up with another approach on this rather than this chained CPI?

I have a couple of thoughts. I would say to my friend from Vermont, to those who say it is unconstitutional to do those things, I wonder if they ever read the preamble to the Constitution, which is, by the way, part of the Constitution of the United States?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more

perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic

Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the

general Welfare.

That is part of the Constitution of the United States.

How we do that obviously can vary from time to time, generation to generation, but the idea that we are here to promote the general welfare as a Federal Government is clearly in the Constitution of the United States.

Secondly, the Senator pointed out the idea that Social Security--that this is really a trust fund. People pay into it, and they take out. Now, it has had its problems.

But I ask the Senator, if unemployment today were down to less than 5 percent--say, 4 percent--what would the Social Security trust fund look like?

So the 2033 date--if we make no changes, they say Social Security will pay 100 percent out up until 2033. But if, in fact, we reduce unemployment to less than 5 percent, the Trust Fund will be able to pay full benefits for a longer period of time.

There is one last thing I would say. The Senator mentioned that we have a deficit. We do. We have to address it. We all agree with that. The Senator pointed out that the offshore haven businesses are not paying their fair share of taxes.

I would like to ask Senator Sanders one other question. Isn't it a fact--well, the estimates vary; $1 trillion is not stretching the truth--to say that the war in Iraq cost us somewhere close to $1 trillion?

I don't know, but I have seen estimates up to $1 trillion for Iraq only. That was all borrowed money, so that has to be paid back.

So are we going to make the elderly, the poor, the students, and the veterans pay for that?

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sheerin Gryloo, Elizabeth McCauley, and Anna Porto of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in open session on Tuesday, April 23, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Successful Primary Care Programs: Creating the Workforce We Need.''

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Sophie Kasimow of the committee staff on (202) 224-2831.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in open session on Wednesday, April 24, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Economic Importance of Financial Literacy Education For Students.''

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Josh Teitelbaum of the committee staff on (202) 228-1455.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in open session on Thursday, April 25, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Whistleblowers and Job Safety: Are Protections Adequate to Build a Safer Workplace?''

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Larry Smar of the committee staff on (202) 224-9243.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in executive session on Thursday, April 25, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to markup 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 rise to speak in support of amendment No. 730, which I have offered along with Senator Alexander and a bipartisan group of colleagues. This amendment would reauthorize and improve programs administered by both the Department of Education and Health and Human Services related to awareness, intervention, prevention of mental health conditions, and the promotion of linkages to appropriate services for children and youth.

Basically, title I focuses on school settings by promoting schoolwide prevention through the development of positive behavioral interventions and supports. Title II focuses on suicide prevention and also helping children recover from traumatic events.

I wish to make it clear this amendment passed our committee last week unanimously--unanimously. It has a number of Republican and Democratic cosponsors, so I hope, regardless of how we might agree or disagree on all the stuff about guns and the stuff that has come up, we can all agree we need to do a better job of early identification, intervention, and providing support services for the mental health of our children in this country.

With that, I yield to Senator Alexander.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment which is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in open session on Thursday, April 18, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Hearing for Secretary of Labor-Designate Thomas E. Perez.''

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

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in open session on Tuesday, April 16, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Challenge of College Affordability: The Student Lens''

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Leanne Hotek of the committee staff on (202) 228-6685.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in open session on Thursday, April 11, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``A New, Open Marketplace: The Effect of Guaranteed Issue and New Rating Rules.''

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 executive session on Wednesday, April 10, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to mark-up S.__, Mental Health Awareness and the nomination of Jenny Yang, to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

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

committee on indian affairs

Mr. President, I want to speak to amendment No. 202 by Senator Cruz, which we will be voting on shortly.

The Senator from Texas informed us that the amendment would repeal the Affordable Care Act. Well, that approach has already been rejected by the electorate, I would just reference, in the last election. Also, we have had more than 35 separate votes in the Congress about that and we have always upheld the Affordable Care Act. But I want to focus Senators' attention on something that is in the Cruz amendment that they may not know.

When we passed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, not only did it contain the health care portion of it, but it also had a portion in there on education. What we did was to stop that old system of subsidizing banks for student loans and changed it into a direct loan program.

That was about a $61 billion transfer from the banks getting these risk-free government subsidies to basically putting it in so that students could get more of the money. So under that provision, for example, $36 billion of those savings went to increasing the Pell grants. So now we have a higher Pell grant award and it is indexed to the rising cost of living.

The Cruz amendment--maybe the Senator didn't understand it when he drafted it--in the drafting of it, does away with that. So if my colleagues vote for the Cruz amendment, they are, in fact, voting to cut Pell grants. Go back and tell your colleges and universities that. You may not know that, but that is what is in that Cruz amendment.

Also, $2.55 billion went to investments in historically Black colleges and universities serving minority students. That would be cut out with the Cruz amendment. Another $2 billion went to community colleges, and that would be cut out by the Cruz amendment.

So it is not just the Affordable Care Act, folks, that is being cut or done away with by the Cruz amendment but all of the things we did to bolster education for minority students and for disadvantaged students, and in raising the Pell grants. I would ask my colleagues to talk to their private colleges, talk to their universities in their States and see what they think about this. See what they think about cutting down on the Pell grants. That would be the exact result of passing the Cruz amendment.

There is one other thing we did in that portion of the reconciliation bill. We also put in place a more generous income-based repayment system so that students who graduate from college can base their repayment on a smaller portion of their discretionary income. We capped it. We capped the student loan repayment to 10 percent of discretionary income so that when students get out and get a job, they only have to pay a maximum of 10 percent of their discretionary income to repay their student loans. That would be done away with in the Cruz amendment. I wanted to point that out. Maybe the Senator didn't realize it when he drafted the amendment, but that is the way it is drafted and that is the way the vote will occur. So if my colleagues think they are just voting to do away with the Affordable Care Act, look again at the amendment. It is not just that, it is education funding also. So I wanted to point that out.

We are going to hear a lot about a lot of bad amendments coming up today, but this is truly a very bad amendment. Maybe it should have been drafted differently to accomplish what the Senator from Texas wanted. If that was a clean vote on doing away with the Affordable Care Act, fine, if he wants to do that, but the way it is drafted it cuts Pell grants, assistance for community colleges, and all the things we did to help students get a higher education in this country. I wanted to let Senators know that.

If I have at least 30 seconds or 60 seconds left, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I invite all Senators, before we start voting today, to read the Washington Post this morning, the front-page story: ``On Montana Reservation, Cuts Hit Hard.'' It talks about the Fort Peck reservation and what is going to happen there to these students and these families on this reservation. Please read it. Please.

How can we be so cruel? How can we be so heartless? How can we be so immune from understanding the impact

of the sequester and what is happening to poor kids? This is one classic example.

As one teacher there said: You know, if you have a lot and you cut 5 percent, that is not much. But when you don't have anything, cutting 5 percent really hurts.

The article talks about how much they are going to lose in their Head Start Program, how many students are going to lose because they do not have support systems on the reservation. It tears your heart out to read this.

I think about the kind of votes we are going to be having today and the impact of those votes on these kids and these families on this reservation. They have no place else to turn. They have no place else to turn. It is not as though they have property taxes on the reservation. They do not have that. They do not have businesses there. They do not have anything. But you know what I would like most of all for colleagues to know? One person was quoted as saying: This is not something we are giving our Native Americans, this is something we owe them. This is something we owe them. Read your history--all the land we took from them. Helping them on reservations is not a gift. We owe them this. And now we are pulling the rug out from underneath them.

Read about this young girl whose mother committed suicide and her father is in a drug treatment program in Minnesota. She is 15 years old and she is trying to make it, yet we are telling her--basically, with our votes here and with this sequester--we don't care. I ask people to read that before we start voting today and let your conscience be your guide.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this will be the 36th time we have voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. I know the Senators on the other side want to revote to repeal it. That is fine. I wish to warn you, due to the way this amendment is drafted, it also repeals what we put in that bill on education; to wit, we put in money to increase Pell grants. We put in money to increase funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities. We put in money also to help the community colleges, $2 billion. We also included the more generous income-based repayment system to ensure people don't need to pay more than 10 percent of their discretionary income to pay back their student loans. All of that is wiped out in the Senator's amendment.

Again, maybe it is just a drafting error. But I think Senators should know you are not just voting to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. That is fine if you want to do that. I don't think Senators on the other side of the aisle who are here wish to vote to decrease Pell grants and to decrease funding for universities.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, the way this amendment is drafted means the money that goes to title I could then be taken and go to private schools. That is the first thing.

Secondly, we have tried this before. The District of Columbia has a voucher program that we passed in Congress in 2003. And guess what they have found since 2O03? It made no impact whatsoever on student achievement, and now the program is to the point it is being phased out.

Again, at this point in time when we are worried about uncertainty in our schools, teacher salaries, and we have the sequester taking money from schools, this isn't the time to take even more money out of our public school system.

Mr. President, this ought to be known as the Harry Potter invisibility cloak amendment.

Anyone who has read ``Harry Potter'' knows he had this invisibility cloak he put over himself and people couldn't see him. They have tried 36 separate times to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. They can't do that, so now they want to put an invisibility cloak over it.

The Roberts amendment says we can't tell people, for example, that their kids can stay on their policy until they are 26; we can't tell people that now they can get coverage even though they have a preexisting condition; we can't tell people they can go on the exchange starting this October, where they can get good health care.

Let's vote down the Harry Potter invisibility cloak amendment.

Mr. President, Monday marked the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Gideon v. Wainwright. That decision recognized that every person accused of a crime, whether wealthy or poor, is guaranteed the right to counsel. At its core, Gideon is the promise of justice for all, including the most vulnerable citizens of our society.

We need to celebrate that landmark ruling and to recognize Clarence Gideon. In many instances throughout our history, it has been ordinary citizens who have led to the most profound changes in our country, and that is certainly the case here.

Clarence Gideon was a poor drifter with a history of drinking and gambling. He was charged in Florida with breaking and entering into a pool hall and stealing money from vending machines. When he requested a lawyer be appointed to represent him, because he could not afford to hire an attorney, he was told that a lawyer was only provided to defendants facing the death penalty.

From his prison cell at the Florida State Prison, Gideon wrote a handwritten note to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to overturn his conviction because he had not been appointed a lawyer. That note read, simply: ``The question is I did not get a fair trial. The question is very simple. I requested the court to appoint me attorney and the court refused.''

That handwritten note led, 50 years ago Monday, to the Court unanimously declaring the ``obvious truth'' that ``lawyers in criminal court are necessities, not luxuries.'' As the Court made clear:

In our adversary system of criminal justice, any person

hauled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot

be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him.

From the very beginning, our state and national

constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural

and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials

before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands

equal before the law. This noble idea cannot be realized if

the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers

without a lawyer to assist him.

Mr. President, since Gideon, there has been progress. Since 1963, governments have expended greater resources in defending accused persons, and many more criminal defendants receive fairer trials with due process of law. And, we must acknowledge the thousands of lawyers, many of whom have the education and skills to command much higher salaries in the private sector, who have chosen to dedicate their careers to ensuring the rights of our most vulnerable citizens, those accused of a crime. As just one example, I am proud that I recently recommended Jane Kelly, a career Federal defender in Iowa, to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and I look forward to her speedy confirmation.

While we rightly celebrate Gideon and the progress over the last 50 years, we must acknowledge that we have much work still to do. As Attorney General Holder recently said,

[a]cross the country, public defender offices and other

indigent defense providers are underfunded and understaffed .

. . Millions of Americans still struggle to access the legal

services that they need and deserve--and to which they are

constitutionally entitled.

Even when a defendant is provided an attorney, too many are represented by attorneys who do not have the time, training, or tools to do their jobs properly. Many defendants are ``represented'' by lawyers who have hundreds of other cases and who lack requisite expertise and sufficient support staff. Too often the representation is perfunctory and so deficient as not to amount to representation at all.

According to a 2011 report by the Justice Policy Institute, only 27 percent of county-based public defender offices and 21 percent of state public defender systems have enough attorneys to meet national guidelines. Only 7 percent of county-based public defender offices have enough investigators to meet national guidelines, and 87 percent of small county-based public defender offices do not have a single full- time investigator.

As a result, too many defenders lack access to sufficient resources to interview key witnesses, collect or test physical evidence, or generally prepare a quality defense. A 2009 investigation by the Constitution Project, the National Legal Aid & Defender Association, and the National Right to Counsel Committee found documented instances in which public defenders carried as many as 500 active felony cases at a time--the American Bar Association recommends 150--and as many as 2,225 misdemeanor cases. The ABA recommends 400.

According to a Brennan Center report, the average amount of time spent by a public defender at arraignment is often less than 6 minutes per case. And, the National Law Journal article examining Gideon's anniversary highlighted the fact that in Wisconsin, private lawyers who are hired to represent indigent defendants are paid $40 an hour-- unchanged since 1978. In Maryland, a State court of appeals last year ruled defendants are entitled to counsel at bail hearings. Rather than paying to ensure this right, the State legislature repealed the law instead.

Unfortunately, sequestration is exacerbating the problem. In Iowa, the Federal defender has notified the Federal courts that because of the sequester, each Federal defender employee will need to be furloughed for 20 to 24 days between April 8 and September 30. The Federal defender is being forced to close the Southern District Office on Mondays and the Northern District Office on Fridays. These furloughs and closings will put a strain on already overworked public servants and has the risk of jeopardizing the quality representation every defendant in Iowa deserves.

When criminal defendants lack quality representation, there is a heightened risk of our justice system making egregious mistakes. We have learned all too well, especially with the advent of DNA evidence, that an unknowable number of genuinely innocent persons have been wrongly convicted. For innocent persons to lose their liberty or, in the case of the death penalty, their lives, is a travesty of justice. It is a national shame. And, as Attorney General Janet Reno once said, ``in the end, a good lawyer is the best defense against wrongful conviction.'' There is no more telling example than Gideon himself. After the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, he was retried, only this time with a lawyer. The jury took 1 hour to acquit him.

Recognizing that we must improve our system of representation for indigent Americans, I am proud to cosponsor the Gideon's Promise Act, introduced Monday by Senator Leahy.

Not only does the basic right guaranteed for criminal defendants in Gideon five decades ago remain not yet fully realized, it is also outrageous that there remains no guaranteed right to counsel in the civil context. As James Sandman, president of the Legal Services Corporation, recently said,

Most Americans don't realize that you can have your home

taken away, your children taken away and you can be a victim

of domestic violence but you have no constitutional right to

a lawyer to protect you.

This issue is personal for me. Before I was elected to Congress, I practiced law with Polk County legal aid in Iowa. I can honestly say the work I did with legal aid is some of the most important and rewarding of my career. I learned firsthand that, without access to an attorney, the poor are often powerless in the face of injustice and wrongdoing, even within a judicial system that purports to ensure equal justice under law.

At the Federal level, since the administration of President Nixon, we as a nation have supported civil legal aid programs through the Legal Services Corporation. And, make no mistake: these programs have made a crucial difference to millions of low-income Americans. Recipients of LSC funding help clients secure basic human needs, such as wrongly denied Society Security benefits and health care. Low-income Americans receive aid with consumer, housing and employment issues. LSC-funded attorneys help parents obtain and keep custody of their children, assist parents in enforcing child support payments, and help women who are victims of domestic violence. In addition, LSC has greatly expanded its capacity to meet the legal needs of veterans, active-duty servicemembers and their families, and has been critical in providing legal assistance to Americans impacted by deadly natural disasters.

Unfortunately, however, too many Americans today cannot afford critical civil legal representation. In many parts of the Nation, more than 80 percent of those who need an attorney go without one. Nationally, over 50 percent of applicants for federally funded legal services who request legal aid are turned away because programs lack adequate funding. In other words, American citizens are being denied justice not because of the facts of their case or because of governing law, but solely because they cannot afford an attorney. This is not justice. And, to state the obvious, it makes a mockery of the principle of equal justice under the law.

I want to thank Senators Mikulski and Shelby for all of their hard work and effort with respect to the fiscal year 2013 appropriations bill and for protecting critical funds for LSC. That bill provided $358 million for LSC, a $10 million increase over fiscal year 2012, which itself was a $56 million cut from fiscal year 2011. This is still far less than the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1995, which would be about $594 million in today's dollars, and even further below the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1981--about $800 million in today's dollars. But this week's bill was a critical increase in a difficult budget environment and I am grateful.

At the same time, however, it is long past time for us as a nation to make clear that all Americans, whether wealthy or poor, have the right to legal representation. It was President Nixon who created the Legal Services Corporation and who said,

I would suggest there is no subject which is more important

to the legal profession, that is more important to this

nation, than . . . the realization of the ideal of equal

justice for all.

As my former Republican colleague Pete Domenici declared:

I do not know what is wrong with the United States of

America saying to the needy people of this country that the

judicial system is not only for the rich. What is wrong with

that? . . . That is what American is all about.

On Clarence Gideon's gravestone in Hannibal, MO, is a quote drawn from the letter he wrote to Abe Fortas, who was appointed to represent him before the Supreme Court. It reads, ``Each era finds an improvement in law for the benefit of mankind.''

Directly across from the Senate stands the marble judicial temple of the Supreme Court, and above its entrance is engraved the most fundamental principle and ideal of our system of criminal justice. It says, simply, ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' Let us as a nation continue to strive to fulfill the promise of our Constitution, for both criminal and civil litigants. ``Equal Justice Under Law'' must be more than an aspiration chiseled on a marble facade; it must be a concrete reality for ALL of our fellow citizens.

Mr. President, first I thank Senator Murray and the Budget Committee for producing a budget that says loudly and clearly that our No. 1 priority is to fight for a stronger middle class, even as we dramatically reduce budgets and stabilize the debt by the end of the decade. I also applaud Senator Murray and the committee for producing a budget resolution that insists on a balanced approach to deficit reduction: both spending cuts and revenue increases--both.

I also applaud my colleague Senator Levin for his leadership on using his investigating subcommittee, his Permanent Committee on Investigations, to bring to light over the last few years the number of loopholes and the egregious tax spending that we are doing through loopholes that allows corporations and others to get by without paying their fair share of taxes.

Senator Carl Levin has long fought to bring fairness to the Tax Code. His investigations have shown that one of the major things we have to do is to close up some of those egregious loopholes.

My colleague from Iowa was just talking. He pointed out the years we balanced the budget. I note those are the years when we had a Democratic President, President Clinton. We were working off the 1993 deal that was made to both reduce spending and increase revenues. We had growth in the economy. We had low unemployment. We balanced the budget for 5 years in a row.

During that time our revenues averaged about 20 percent of our gross domestic product. Now it is down to less than 18 percent. We also know that demographics, including the tens of millions of baby boomers becoming eligible for Social Security and Medicare, will place vast new demands on our budget. At the same time, we need to make investments in infrastructure, research, and education to prepare our young people and our economy for the competitive global economy that is coming. I remind my colleagues that when President George W. Bush's tax cut was passed in 2001, it was defended on the grounds that it was only going to take a small part of the projected surpluses that we were going to have for the next 10 years. That was what was said.

As we now know, those surpluses didn't materialize. We had the tax cuts, we had two unpaid-for wars that completely wiped out the expected surpluses, and yet we kept those big tax cuts going and that created big deficits. Then the onslaught of the great recession in 2008 pushed our deficits even higher.

To date, only one-eighth of the revenues lost by the Bush tax cuts have been restored. Yet many of the Republicans keep repeating their mantra that we only have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. This is demonstrably not the case.

If we go back in time, when I was here, President Reagan pushed through some tax cuts. To his credit, he realized he went too far. He reversed course and supported two income tax increases. In looking back just 12 years ago, President George W. Bush's tax cuts also went too far, again, contributing to the largest deficit in our history.

One would think we would want to reverse course, but Republicans have dogmatically refused to reverse course on increasing revenues. They are sticking to their ideological mantra. They say: Don't touch tax breaks for the wealthy and the largest corporations. Instead, cut the programs that undergird the middle class and meet the needs of the most vulnerable citizens. They demand that we slash funding for infrastructure, innovation, and education and keep tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

There are abundant opportunities for cutting waste, cutting spending, but it needs to happen on both sides. Yes, we need spending cuts. We need to cut spending by closing tax provisions in the Tax Code that hurt our economy. That is where we need to cut some spending--tax spending that goes to the wealthiest and goes to large corporations.

I will cite a few examples. Consider the so-called deferral provision governing taxation of profits earned by companies overseas. Follow this: A U.S. company can deduct the cost of starting a business overseas, such as building a facility. They can deduct the cost of shipping equipment to that plant even if it comes from America. But the Tax Code then allows these companies to delay paying taxes on these profits until its profits are brought back home.

So on one hand, they get tax breaks for building a plant overseas, they get other tax breaks for shipping the jobs overseas, they get tax breaks for shipping equipment that could be used in America overseas-- those are immediate. They get the tax breaks right away, but when that plant earns a profit, they are not taxed until and unless they bring those back home. That is totally unfair to U.S. manufacturers who may have a factory in Iowa or New Mexico and pay their full taxes at a full and fair rate. The lost revenue is unfair to Americans who play by the rules, pay their full taxes, and, yes, Americans who rely on essential government services.

Here is another one. U.S. companies can sell their patents to their own subsidiaries with an overseas postal address in a country with low tax rates. The parent company is paid to use the patent, generating profits for the company, but the taxes on those profits are not paid as long as the money is technically in the subsidiary's account even if the money is deposited in a U.S. bank.

Consider another tax outrage, and we all know it by the name of ``carried interest.'' What does that mean? It means that for those individuals who are fortunate enough to make $10 million a year, they pay income taxes at the rate of 39.6 percent. But if a hedge fund manager makes $10 million managing a hedge fund and never invested a penny, they get taxed at 20 percent, not 39.6 percent. Twenty percent is the capital gains rate for most of our income. Well, why is that? Well, there is no rational reason. That was just put into the Tax Code I guess by some great tax lobbyist who was hired by the hedge fund industry.

These gimmicks and tax breaks cost the Treasury untold billions of dollars. They serve no constructive economic purpose. In fact, they give incentives to corporations to make decisions that harm the U.S. economy and American workers. By ending these abuses, we can generate needed revenue while creating a fairer Tax Code, one that does not reward corporations and the wealthy for behaviors that put the rest of us at an unfair disadvantage.

When I hear someone say, well, we are going to have tax reform, but it must be revenue neutral, what I hear is, let's keep all the tax loopholes for the wealthy and these large corporations. I say it is time to end that. We need that revenue for education, reinvesting in the infrastructure of our country, biomedical research, and science research. We need it to make sure that our young people today are able to compete in this global economy in the future.

Compromise, commonsense, and good-faith negotiations are what we need today. We do not need someone saying: No, we cannot raise revenues; all we have to do is cut spending. On our side, under the leadership of Senator Murray, we have said we will cut spending, but we will also raise revenues. We will have a balanced approach.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this budget resolution and to say no to all of these amendments that would upset what I think is a very good, solid budget resolution that has been put forward by Senator Murray and the committee. Let's put dogma aside. Let's act rationally and reasonably, and let's come together for a balanced and responsible solution to our Nation's budget challenges.

I yield the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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