Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Harkin pertaining to the introduction of S. 2658 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Madam President, Friday, July 25, marks the 40th anniversary of the Legal Services Corporation, LSC. In 1974, Congress-- with bipartisan support, including that of President Nixon--established LSC to be a major source of funding for civil legal aid in this country. LSC is a private, nonprofit corporation, funded by Congress, with the mission to ensure equal access to justice under law for all Americans by providing civil legal assistance to those who otherwise would be unable to afford it. LSC distributes nearly 94 percent of its annual Federal appropriations to 134 local legal aid programs, with nearly 800 offices serving every congressional district and U.S. territories.

LSC-funded legal aid programs make a crucial difference to millions of Americans by assisting with the most basic civil legal needs, such as addressing matters involving safety, subsistence, and family stability. These low-income Americans are women seeking protection from abuse, mothers trying to obtain child support, families facing unlawful evictions or foreclosures that could leave them homeless, veterans seeking benefits duly earned, seniors defending against consumer scams, and individuals who have lost their jobs and need help in applying for unemployment compensation and other benefits.

It is LSC-funded attorneys who 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 fact, three out of four legal aid clients are women, and legal aid programs identify domestic violence as one of their top priorities.

I know firsthand the important work of the Legal Services Corporation. Before I was elected to Congress, I worked as a legal aid attorney in Polk County, IA. I experienced the challenges--and also the rewards--of representing people who otherwise would not have the legal assistance they deserve. And I developed a deep appreciation for the role that legal aid attorneys play within our system of justice.

Investing in civil legal aid helps ensure that we have equal justice under the law. That is a fundamental American value, and it is reflected both in the first line of our Constitution and in the closing words of our Pledge of Allegiance. As former Justice Lewis Powell said: ``Equal justice under law is not merely a caption on the facade of the Supreme Court building. It is perhaps the most inspiring ideal of our society . . . it is fundamental that justice should be the same, in substance and availability, without regard to economic status.''

Given the vital role played by LSC-funded attorneys, it is disturbing to note that more than 50 percent of eligible clients who seek assistance continue to be turned away because of lack of LSC program resources. With the growing number of Americans eligible for services and increased demand for legal services, the need for legal aid attorneys has never been greater. On this anniversary, I salute the Legal Services Corporation and LSC-funded attorneys for the vital work they do every day on behalf of Americans who need qualified counsel. Every day that a legal aid attorney protects the safety, security and health of our most vulnerable citizens, they bring this Nation closer to living up to its commitment to equal justice for all.

Mr. President, last year, 2013, marked the 10-year anniversary of the completion of the historic campaign to double funding for the National Institutes of Health.

Beginning in fiscal year 1998, I worked with Congressman John Porter and Senator Arlen Specter in our leadership roles on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies. In that year, 1998, funding for the National Institutes of Health was $13 billion. By fiscal year 2003, we had increased NIH funding to $27 billion. We doubled funding in 5 years. We said we were, and we laid out a plan under both Republican and Democratic administrations and we got it done. That was a historic milestone for biomedical research in the United States.

Truly, increasing our Nation's investment in NIH was a bold statement of our Nation's commitment to retaining our standing as the undisputed world leader in biomedical research, and we have reaped extraordinary benefits from that investment. We reaped benefits in terms of new treatments, new diagnostics, and the new jobs and economic growth that biomedical research brings.

But where does NIH stand today, 10 years after the historic doubling of funding for biomedical research, which did so much to advance America's economy and our standing in the world? Where are we today? Sadly, as this chart illustrates, we have been falling behind.

So here we are. We got back up to where we should be by doubling the funding. Since that time, it has basically leveled off. We are now short about $8 billion below where we would be if we had just kept up with inflation. So NIH has lost about 20 percent of its purchasing power from that time. Success rates for applicants fell from the traditional range of 25 to 35 percent to just 16 percent last year, 2013. Promising research was not funded, and many young scientists had no choice but to find other occupations. This has had profoundly negative consequences. Our biomedical pipeline is clearly showing the negative effects.

So today I am introducing a bill that allows us to find common ground, on a bipartisan basis, to jump-start our reinvestment in the National Institutes of Health and ensure America's leadership in biomedical research.

Republicans and Democrats may disagree on what level of revenue is appropriate. We disagree about the value of investing in education in order to build a stronger workforce. But I have yet to hear any Senator who disagrees with my view that Federal investments in biomedical research are good for the economy and good for our country.

As the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that funds NIH, I get letters from Senators every year requesting support for research programs, so I can speak with authority when I say the majority of Senators--from both parties--believe we should be investing more strongly in NIH. That is exactly the aim of the bill I am introducing today. The Accelerating Biomedical Research Act makes NIH a priority in our national budget process by creating a budget cap adjustment for the National Institutes of Health. This bill will put a plan in place for the Appropriations Committee to reverse the 10-year retrenchment in biomedical research funding over the remaining years of the Budget Control Act.

Importantly, the Accelerating Biomedical Research Act is not an appropriation. It is not a mandatory trust fund. It is not a tax credit. The bill that I am introducing does not score for CBO purposes because it does not spend any money now. I am always hearing that we should have a robust debate on the budget and our spending priorities as a country. So this bill starts that debate. I invite Senators to cosponsor this bill if they believe, as I do, that we should change our budget to allow for biomedical research to grow in the United States.

I ask unanimous consent that a list of the organizations who have endorsed this bill be entered into the Record at the end of my remarks.

I believe we must do this. I believe we must do this to save lives and to improve the health of the American people. I also believe we must do it because we know that investing in biomedical research creates jobs and spurs the economy.

Some may say that changing the budget allows for more spending so it should be offset by cuts to other programs. Well, to that I say there can be little doubt that NIH funding abundantly pays for itself in expanded economic activity. Respected economists have studied this, and they have estimated that each dollar of investment in the National Institutes of Health generates anywhere from $1.80 to $3.20 in economic output.

Let me take just one vivid example of the payoffs from our Federal investments in biomedical research.

In 2003 NIH completed the Human Genome Project started about 13 years earlier. In total, the Federal Government invested $3.4 billion of taxpayers' money in sequencing the human genome. That project has had a truly staggering economic impact. As of 2012, it had generated $965 billion in economic activity, personal income exceeding $293 billion, and more than 4.3 million job-years of employment. For every dollar our government spent on the Human Genome Project, America has reaped $178 in economic benefits--for every dollar we invest. And this is just the economic impact. The positive impact in terms of cures discovered and lives saved is incalculable.

But research doesn't have to launch an entire industry to contribute significantly to our economy as the Human Genome Project did. I will give an example from my home State.

Dr. Joseph Walder, a researcher at the University of Iowa, received a $5.7 million research grant many years ago from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. In the course of his research, he developed synthetic DNA and RNA technology. Realizing that

this was a valuable research tool, Dr. Walder launched a company called Integrated DNA Technologies in 1987. Out of a $5.7 million Federal investment came a company with $100 million in annual sales, employing 650 people.

Now, if the creation of all of these companies and products and jobs isn't enough of a reason to expect that this bill will boost the economy and lower the Federal deficit, I have another reason. One of the principal missions of biomedical research is to reduce and improve chronic diseases and health conditions that are a major factor in driving deficit spending. In 2006, economists found that a future 1- percent reduction in mortality rates from cancer would save $500 billion to current and future Americans. A cure for cancer was estimated to save $50 trillion to Americans in future expenditures.

Recent estimates indicate the economic cost of Alzheimer's disease is over $200 billion a year. That is going to rise to over $1 trillion a year by 2050 unless a prevention or cure is found. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that annual costs from undiagnosed diabetes are about $245 billion a year. And a recent study projects that, by 2030, nearly 45 percent of the United States population will face some form of cardiovascular disease, costing a total of $1.2 trillion between now and 2030.

I could go on and on with examples and studies, but no matter what I say, some will say we can't afford this bill. But we can't afford not to do this. The status quo confronts our Nation with what those in the military call a ``clear and present danger.''

The United States has been the global leader in research, but that standing is now in jeopardy. While the United States has been retrenching in biomedical research, other countries, including China, India, and Singapore, have been redoubling their investments and surging forward. Of the 10 leading countries in the field of scientific research, the United States is the only one that has reduced its investment in scientific research.

Let me repeat that. Of the 10 leading countries in the world in the field of scientific research, the United States is the only one that has reduced its investment in scientific research.

According to an NIH study:

Other countries are investing more in biomedical research

relative to the size of their economies. When it comes to

government funding for pharmaceutical industry-performed

research, Korea's government provides seven times more

funding as a share of GDP than does the United States, while

Singapore and Taiwan provide five and three times as much,

respectively. France and the United Kingdom also provide more

than the US, as a share of their economies.

This chart here vividly shows what has been happening in research investment just since 2011 as a percent of GDP: China, Brazil, South Korea, India, UK, France, Japan, Germany, and Russia are increasing. In the United States we are going in the wrong direction.

Dr. Francis Collins, Director of NIH, testified before my subcommittee about the ambitious investments of America's rivals. He said this:

China has made policy changes to invest heavily in the life

sciences industry, moving [China] closer to becoming a world

leader in science and technology by the end of the decade.

Over the past decade, Singapore has also pursued a

prominent role as a global leader in the life sciences.

For example, their pharmaceutical industry R&D funding was

five times greater than that of the United States in 2009

as a share of GDP.

I will say one more thing about China's ambitious plans. China has identified biotechnology as one of seven key ``strategic and emerging pillar'' industries. They have pledged to invest $308.5 billion in biotechnology over the next 5 years. By contrast, the U.S. investment over the same period of time will be roughly $160 billion, just about half of what China is doing.

It is a shocking and disturbing fact that, if current trends continue, the U.S. Government's investment in life sciences research as a share of GDP will soon be about one quarter of what China is doing.

According to the NIH, China already has more gene sequencing capacity than the entire United States, and they have about one third of global capacity.

Imagine that. We are the ones that mapped and sequenced the entire human genome. We are the ones that put the $3.6 billion into that. We reaped some rewards and benefits--as I just said--but right now China has more gene sequencing capacity than we do. That, again, illustrates my point that they are moving ahead and we have sort of slowed down and stopped, resting on our laurels, so to speak.

The budget caps enacted by Congress are forcing disinvestments in a whole range of priorities that are the key to our Nation's prosperity. These disinvestments are having devastating impacts across our economy--lower growth and fewer jobs.

Again, I appreciate there are honest disagreements about the appropriate levels of investment in education, job training, and other domestic priorities. But from countless conversations with Senators from both parties, there seems to be one area of broad agreement, and that is that we should invest robustly in the National Institutes of Health. And that is why I have introduced this bill today. It is time for us on a bipartisan basis to reverse this erosion of support for biomedical research to ensure America's standing as a world leader in this field. This is what we are talking about, a discretionary cap adjustment. That is what our bill would do to allow NIH to make up for lost ground.

Here is what is happening. We are about $8 billion behind. By providing a budget cap adjustment we can close this gap by 2021 and bring it up to where it should be if we could allow for increases due to inflation. Quite frankly, I guess I could argue we have to do even more than that, but this is the minimum we ought to do, a minimum to close the gap in biomedical research.

We have to do this for the health of our people, our economy, and our Federal budget. So I urge my colleagues to join in supporting the Accelerating Biomedical Research Act.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last year, 2013, marked the 10-year anniversary of the completion of the historic campaign to double funding for the National Institutes of Health.

Beginning in fiscal year 1998, I worked with Congressman John Porter and Senator Arlen Specter in our leadership roles on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies. In that year, 1998, funding for the National Institutes of Health was $13 billion. By fiscal year 2003, we had increased NIH funding to $27 billion. We doubled funding in 5 years. We said we were, and we laid out a plan under both Republican and Democratic administrations and we got it done. That was a historic milestone for biomedical research in the United States.

Truly, increasing our Nation's investment in NIH was a bold statement of our Nation's commitment to retaining our standing as the undisputed world leader in biomedical research, and we have reaped extraordinary benefits from that investment. We reaped benefits in terms of new treatments, new diagnostics, and the new jobs and economic growth that biomedical research brings.

But where does NIH stand today, 10 years after the historic doubling of funding for biomedical research, which did so much to advance America's economy and our standing in the world? Where are we today? Sadly, as this chart illustrates, we have been falling behind.

So here we are. We got back up to where we should be by doubling the funding. Since that time, it has basically leveled off. We are now short about $8 billion below where we would be if we had just kept up with inflation. So NIH has lost about 20 percent of its purchasing power from that time. Success rates for applicants fell from the traditional range of 25 to 35 percent to just 16 percent last year, 2013. Promising research was not funded, and many young scientists had no choice but to find other occupations. This has had profoundly negative consequences. Our biomedical pipeline is clearly showing the negative effects.

So today I am introducing a bill that allows us to find common ground, on a bipartisan basis, to jump-start our reinvestment in the National Institutes of Health and ensure America's leadership in biomedical research.

Republicans and Democrats may disagree on what level of revenue is appropriate. We disagree about the value of investing in education in order to build a stronger workforce. But I have yet to hear any Senator who disagrees with my view that Federal investments in biomedical research are good for the economy and good for our country.

As the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that funds NIH, I get letters from Senators every year requesting support for research programs, so I can speak with authority when I say the majority of Senators--from both parties--believe we should be investing more strongly in NIH. That is exactly the aim of the bill I am introducing today. The Accelerating Biomedical Research Act makes NIH a priority in our national budget process by creating a budget cap adjustment for the National Institutes of Health. This bill will put a plan in place for the Appropriations Committee to reverse the 10-year retrenchment in biomedical research funding over the remaining years of the Budget Control Act.

Importantly, the Accelerating Biomedical Research Act is not an appropriation. It is not a mandatory trust fund. It is not a tax credit. The bill that I am introducing does not score for CBO purposes because it does not spend any money now. I am always hearing that we should have a robust debate on the budget and our spending priorities as a country. So this bill starts that debate. I invite Senators to cosponsor this bill if they believe, as I do, that we should change our budget to allow for biomedical research to grow in the United States.

I ask unanimous consent that a list of the organizations who have endorsed this bill be entered into the Record at the end of my remarks.

I believe we must do this. I believe we must do this to save lives and to improve the health of the American people. I also believe we must do it because we know that investing in biomedical research creates jobs and spurs the economy.

Some may say that changing the budget allows for more spending so it should be offset by cuts to other programs. Well, to that I say there can be little doubt that NIH funding abundantly pays for itself in expanded economic activity. Respected economists have studied this, and they have estimated that each dollar of investment in the National Institutes of Health generates anywhere from $1.80 to $3.20 in economic output.

Let me take just one vivid example of the payoffs from our Federal investments in biomedical research.

In 2003 NIH completed the Human Genome Project started about 13 years earlier. In total, the Federal Government invested $3.4 billion of taxpayers' money in sequencing the human genome. That project has had a truly staggering economic impact. As of 2012, it had generated $965 billion in economic activity, personal income exceeding $293 billion, and more than 4.3 million job-years of employment. For every dollar our government spent on the Human Genome Project, America has reaped $178 in economic benefits--for every dollar we invest. And this is just the economic impact. The positive impact in terms of cures discovered and lives saved is incalculable.

But research doesn't have to launch an entire industry to contribute significantly to our economy as the Human Genome Project did. I will give an example from my home State.

Dr. Joseph Walder, a researcher at the University of Iowa, received a $5.7 million research grant many years ago from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. In the course of his research, he developed synthetic DNA and RNA technology. Realizing that

this was a valuable research tool, Dr. Walder launched a company called Integrated DNA Technologies in 1987. Out of a $5.7 million Federal investment came a company with $100 million in annual sales, employing 650 people.

Now, if the creation of all of these companies and products and jobs isn't enough of a reason to expect that this bill will boost the economy and lower the Federal deficit, I have another reason. One of the principal missions of biomedical research is to reduce and improve chronic diseases and health conditions that are a major factor in driving deficit spending. In 2006, economists found that a future 1- percent reduction in mortality rates from cancer would save $500 billion to current and future Americans. A cure for cancer was estimated to save $50 trillion to Americans in future expenditures.

Recent estimates indicate the economic cost of Alzheimer's disease is over $200 billion a year. That is going to rise to over $1 trillion a year by 2050 unless a prevention or cure is found. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that annual costs from undiagnosed diabetes are about $245 billion a year. And a recent study projects that, by 2030, nearly 45 percent of the United States population will face some form of cardiovascular disease, costing a total of $1.2 trillion between now and 2030.

I could go on and on with examples and studies, but no matter what I say, some will say we can't afford this bill. But we can't afford not to do this. The status quo confronts our Nation with what those in the military call a ``clear and present danger.''

The United States has been the global leader in research, but that standing is now in jeopardy. While the United States has been retrenching in biomedical research, other countries, including China, India, and Singapore, have been redoubling their investments and surging forward. Of the 10 leading countries in the field of scientific research, the United States is the only one that has reduced its investment in scientific research.

Let me repeat that. Of the 10 leading countries in the world in the field of scientific research, the United States is the only one that has reduced its investment in scientific research.

According to an NIH study:

Other countries are investing more in biomedical research

relative to the size of their economies. When it comes to

government funding for pharmaceutical industry-performed

research, Korea's government provides seven times more

funding as a share of GDP than does the United States, while

Singapore and Taiwan provide five and three times as much,

respectively. France and the United Kingdom also provide more

than the US, as a share of their economies.

This chart here vividly shows what has been happening in research investment just since 2011 as a percent of GDP: China, Brazil, South Korea, India, UK, France, Japan, Germany, and Russia are increasing. In the United States we are going in the wrong direction.

Dr. Francis Collins, Director of NIH, testified before my subcommittee about the ambitious investments of America's rivals. He said this:

China has made policy changes to invest heavily in the life

sciences industry, moving [China] closer to becoming a world

leader in science and technology by the end of the decade.

Over the past decade, Singapore has also pursued a

prominent role as a global leader in the life sciences.

For example, their pharmaceutical industry R&D funding was

five times greater than that of the United States in 2009

as a share of GDP.

I will say one more thing about China's ambitious plans. China has identified biotechnology as one of seven key ``strategic and emerging pillar'' industries. They have pledged to invest $308.5 billion in biotechnology over the next 5 years. By contrast, the U.S. investment over the same period of time will be roughly $160 billion, just about half of what China is doing.

It is a shocking and disturbing fact that, if current trends continue, the U.S. Government's investment in life sciences research as a share of GDP will soon be about one quarter of what China is doing.

According to the NIH, China already has more gene sequencing capacity than the entire United States, and they have about one third of global capacity.

Imagine that. We are the ones that mapped and sequenced the entire human genome. We are the ones that put the $3.6 billion into that. We reaped some rewards and benefits--as I just said--but right now China has more gene sequencing capacity than we do. That, again, illustrates my point that they are moving ahead and we have sort of slowed down and stopped, resting on our laurels, so to speak.

The budget caps enacted by Congress are forcing disinvestments in a whole range of priorities that are the key to our Nation's prosperity. These disinvestments are having devastating impacts across our economy--lower growth and fewer jobs.

Again, I appreciate there are honest disagreements about the appropriate levels of investment in education, job training, and other domestic priorities. But from countless conversations with Senators from both parties, there seems to be one area of broad agreement, and that is that we should invest robustly in the National Institutes of Health. And that is why I have introduced this bill today. It is time for us on a bipartisan basis to reverse this erosion of support for biomedical research to ensure America's standing as a world leader in this field. This is what we are talking about, a discretionary cap adjustment. That is what our bill would do to allow NIH to make up for lost ground.

Here is what is happening. We are about $8 billion behind. By providing a budget cap adjustment we can close this gap by 2021 and bring it up to where it should be if we could allow for increases due to inflation. Quite frankly, I guess I could argue we have to do even more than that, but this is the minimum we ought to do, a minimum to close the gap in biomedical research.

We have to do this for the health of our people, our economy, and our Federal budget. So I urge my colleagues to join in supporting the Accelerating Biomedical Research Act.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will to meet on July 30, 2014, at 10:15 a.m., in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Paid Family Leave: The Benefits for Businesses and Working Families.''

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Chris Re- Scherer and Kylie Noble, interns with my personal office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the day's session.

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

Madam President, this is a very important week for Americans with disabilities. Just a few hours ago, at the White House, the President signed the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act which includes a reauthorization of the Rehabilitation Act. This will ensure that young people with disabilities have the skills and experiences to enter into competitive integrated work settings and will be ready to be economically self-sufficient--one of the key goals of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

This bill received extraordinary bipartisan support from an overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans. The final vote in the House was 415 to 6 and the final vote in the Senate was 95 to 3. This is a great testament to the bipartisan support in Congress for advancing the rights and opportunities of people with disabilities in the United States.

Also this week, on Saturday, July 26, we will celebrate the 24th anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act by then-President George Herbert Walker Bush. As the chief Senate sponsor of that law in 1990, I worked closely with Senate and House colleagues on both sides of the aisle to advance the bill. Again, we couldn't have succeeded without the strong and active support of a Republican President, George H.W. Bush, and key members of his cabinet.

When we passed the ADA, as it is known, 24 years ago, the vote was overwhelmingly bipartisan. In the Senate, we passed it by a vote of 91 to 6, and in the House it was 403 to 20. So not only were the votes bipartisan, the arduous work of crafting the ADA and getting it to that point was also bipartisan. I worked shoulder to shoulder with indispensable partners, including Boyden Gray, President Bush's White House Counsel; Richard Thornburgh, Attorney General of the United States at that time; and here in the Senate Senator Bob Dole, who was so key in helping us to move this legislation forward at that time.

Senator Dole was instrumental. In fact, I always remind my colleagues the first speech Senator Dole ever gave on the Senate floor when he was elected to the Senate--his maiden speech--was on that topic, the topic of people with disabilities and their rights and how there should be more opportunity for people with disabilities. It was a great speech.

I think it is also known that today is Senator Dole's birthday. So I, and I am sure my colleagues will join with me, am wishing Senator Dole a very happy birthday today and asking to recommit ourselves, as he did at that time, to work in a bipartisan fashion to make sure people with disabilities not only in this country but around the world have more opportunities to live a full and meaningful life. So happy birthday, Bob Dole. We worked together for a long time on these issues.

Today is another interesting day. Today, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on a bipartisan vote of 12 to 6, passed out of the committee the United Nations treaty on disabilities, formally known as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. A major part of my remarks today is about the United Nations treaty, now known as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities--or the shorthand version is CRPD as it is known here and globally.

For most of our recent history, support for disability rights, as I have just mentioned, has been across the political spectrum. But now, as the full Senate looks ahead to the consideration of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, we are beginning to see an unfortunate erosion of the bipartisan support for disability policy.

Now, again, I wish to make clear that the Foreign Relations Committee reported the bill out this morning on a 12-to-6 vote. It was bipartisan. A couple things are in order: first, a recap of the history; and secondly, a very profound thank you to Senator Bob Menendez, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, for his tremendous leadership in crafting and getting this bill through this Congress in his committee. I have spoken with Senator Menendez many times about this issue. He has been dogged in his pursuit of getting a bill and getting it through the committee and to the Senate floor. And it hasn't been easy, quite frankly. Again, I will recap a little bit of that history for the benefit of my fellow Senators who may not follow this as closely as I follow it.

Again, this convention came through the committee this morning. It is now awaiting a 24-hour layover before it can go on the executive calendar. As I said, there has been some erosion in the bipartisan support for disability policy, but it is limited because I think most Republicans and Democrats agree there is no objective reason for partisan discord when it comes to disability rights. Senator John McCain is a tremendous supporter of disability rights and was with us when we passed the ADA in 1990 and was, again, a strong supporter at that time. He has been a strong supporter of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and other legislation dealing with disability rights, including disability rights amendments we passed in 2008. So Senator McCain has long been a strong supporter of enhancing and improving the rights of people with disabilities to have a full and meaningful life--to be able to have the opportunity to go to school, to learn, be educated, and to have people work and to live independently.

So here is what Senator McCain said this morning in support of this disability treaty. He said: ``Ratifying this treaty affirms our leadership on disability rights and shows the rest of the world our leadership commitment continues.''

Senator Mark Kirk is not a member of the committee but he said this about the disability treaty:

I want to say as a recently disabled American . . . how

important it is to adopt this Convention . . . Too often we

have a problem of thinking of our veterans as victims. They

are victors. . . . This convention allows people to become

victors instead of victims.

And again, one of the true giants of the Senate, former Senator Bob Dole, who, as I mentioned, celebrates a birthday today--had this to say about this disability treaty:

U.S. ratification of the CRPD will increase the ability of

the United States to improve physical, technological, and

communication access in other countries, thereby helping to

ensure that Americans--particularly, many thousands of

disabled American veterans--have equal opportunities to live,

work, and travel abroad.

The fact is this treaty is supported by many respected, thoughtful, conservative Republican leaders. I can cite many more statements from colleagues and other Republicans. The simple truth is that Republican leaders who care deeply about our Nation's sovereignty are equally impassioned in their support of this disability treaty.

So the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities does not need to be and should not be a partisan issue, despite the misguided efforts of

some to make it so. It is deeply unfortunate that narrowly focused opposition from groups with special interests that are far afield of the bipartisan consensus in support of disability rights have tried to drag this treaty into partisan warfare. These groups have spread fear about some imaginary, hypothetical, unreal loss of U.S. sovereignty. They try to scare parents into thinking they are going to lose control of the education of their children or that they won't be able to home school their children or they have raised the issue of abortion, which has nothing whatsoever to do with this treaty. None of these things are relevant to or are embedded in the treaty.

What we are seeing here is an action by some narrow special interest groups to advance their intentions by making utterly unfounded claims about the disability treaty.

So, again, this is rhetoric we should not be listening to. We should listen to the voices of the better angels of our nature. This is an important convention, an important treaty.

Even as recently as this morning I heard that in the Foreign Relations Committee someone raised the issue of sovereignty. Well, we passed a lot of treaties here in the past--lots of treaties over the lifetime of our Nation. Are we less sovereign today than we were 10 years ago? Are we less sovereign than we were 30, 50, 100 years ago? I would have to have someone prove to me how we have lost our sovereignty. We haven't--not at all. And in every treaty that we have signed in the past, there is always a clause in the reservations, understandings, and declarations that attaches to the resolution we pass here on the treaty. There is always one clause that is attached and I will read it to my colleagues. It says:

Supremacy of Constitution. Nothing in the Convention

requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the

United States of America that is prohibited by the

Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the

United States.

That is it. That goes on every treaty we sign. It says, look, we are signing the treaty, but our Constitution is supreme.

Continuing:

Nothing in this treaty requires or authorizes any action by

the United States prohibited by the Constitution as

interpreted by the United States of America.

Who interprets the Constitution? The Supreme Court. But then we can always pass amendments and change it--by the United States of America.

So we have offered that this is the same language we ought to attach to this convention--the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Someone said: We don't know what the United Nations is going to do in the future. We don't know how they might want to change it.

It makes no difference. It makes no difference what the U.N. does in the future. Our Constitution is still supreme, and this is the clause we put on there to say so. We do it on every treaty.

We just passed a treaty here in 1999 that I was involved in--a treaty on the convention on the worst forms of child labor. It has that clause in it. We didn't give up any of our sovereignty by agreeing to that convention on child labor, and we won't give up any of our sovereignty here. So for anyone who is saying they are concerned about our sovereignty on this convention, we can put that clause in, as we have with every other treaty.

There are some Senators here who were here when we passed that treaty in 1999, and they didn't say anything about sovereignty or that they were concerned about sovereignty. But now some are saying they are concerned about sovereignty when it deals with people with disabilities. Why? Why? Why?

In 1999 we passed a convention dealing with the worst forms of child labor--a good treaty, by the way. No one here raised the issue of sovereignty. Today--what, 15 years later--we have a Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and a number of people say: Oh, no, we are worried about sovereignty.

Someone please explain this to me. It is not about sovereignty. Anyone who is hiding behind that issue does not want to vote for this treaty for some other reason, but it cannot be the reason of sovereignty.

Now, again, we have to look a little bit at the history of this treaty. The drafters of the convention modeled it after the Americans with Disabilities Act. In fact, if you read it, and you look at the ADA, we informed the United Nations--and I talked to people who have been involved in this in the U.N.--we, our laws, informed the U.N. as to what they ought to do in drafting this convention. Why shouldn't we then be a part of it, take the expertise we have and apply it globally?

So it was drafted. It was sent out to the nations for their adoption. It was sent to our President. Under our system, the President sends this proposed treaty out to all of the Departments of the executive branch, including the Office of Management and Budget to see what budget impact it will have, and their charge is to see what laws do we have to change in order to comply with this treaty or what budget impact does it have.

Well, it takes about a year to get this through all the Departments and agencies. But then, when it came back to the President, guess what: We do not have to change one law--not one--to conform to this treaty because the treaty is based on, basically, the Americans with Disabilities Act. So we do not have to change any laws. And, secondly, there is no budget impact.

So then the President sent it down to the Senate for ratification under our Constitution. Then Senator Kerry, who was the chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, had hearings. In fact, the two leadoff witnesses were Senator John McCain and me. Well, then there were other witnesses from the business community, from the disability community-- from all over.

The treaty was reported out of the committee, I believe, in July of 2012. We were not able to get it on the floor until December 2012. Thirty-eight Republican Senators had signed a letter saying we should not vote on a treaty--on a treaty--in a lameduck session. Then there were some other things that came up about home schooling and stuff like that.

To make a long story short, when we brought it on the floor, and we thought we had the votes, we fell six votes short. We had 61 votes. We needed 67. We fell six votes short. A lot of Senators told me at that time we should not be voting on this in a lameduck session. In fact, if you check the Record, you will see remarks made by a lot of Members on the Republican side saying we should not vote on this in a lameduck session.

Well, OK. That Congress dies. We now have a new Congress starting in 2013. Then Chairman Kerry becomes Secretary of State and our new chairman is Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey. So we started working to bring it back. Now again, it all has to come right back from the White House. It has to go back through the hurdles. It has to go back to the committee.

I talked a couple times with the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and he wanted to have some more hearings. So I talked to Senator Menendez about it. Senator Menendez agreed, and he held more hearings on it in this Congress--in this Congress--and a lot of voices were heard. A lot of people testified on it.

Then it has to work its way through the committee. The committee has been very busy on a lot of things, but Senator Menendez never gave up, and so this morning, as I stated earlier, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported out the treaty. I am so grateful to Senator Menendez for not giving up, for being dogged in providing that kind of leadership to get this treaty through. So now it is ready for us to bring up here.

Well, guess what. We are not in a lameduck session, so that excuse has gone by the wayside. And we have answered, I believe, the questions on sovereignty and other issues. Now we have to look at who supports this.

Well, I know some people were kind of nervous about the treaty and voting for it because they were concerned, quite frankly, for their political life. I guess some people in the tea party were making this sort of a litmus test, which I thought was kind of interesting. Why? Why this, of all things?

So what we did was we wanted to see how broad the support was out there. It is immense. The support for this treaty cuts across all lines. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce--Tom Donohue--are strong supporters of it,

wrote a very strong letter and has been contacting Senators about the Chamber of Commerce's support for this treaty.

I spoke a couple months ago with former Governor John Engler, who is now the head of the Business Roundtable, and informed him about it. He said they would look at it, they would consider it. He took it to his Business Roundtable about a little over a month ago, I believe, if I am not mistaken, and the Business Roundtable wrote a very strong letter of support.

So two of the leading business groups in America are supporting this strongly. Every veterans group supports it. The American Legion, the VFW, the PVA--you name it--the Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans all support this. Every major religious group supports it. All the disability groups support it.

So what are we afraid of? Some people say, well, they are concerned about this sovereignty issue again. Are you telling me that former President George H.W. Bush is not concerned about our sovereignty? Are you telling me that former President George W. Bush is not concerned about our sovereignty? Are you trying to tell me that the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable are not concerned about our sovereignty or that Tom Ridge, former Governor of Pennsylvania, the first Director of Homeland Security, who strongly supports this treaty--are you telling me he does not care about our sovereignty?

Are there just a few people on this side of the aisle who know what sovereignty means? Of course not. Former President George H.W. Bush, former President George W. Bush, former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, Boyden Gray, former counsel of the President--Steve Bartlett, former Congressman, a Republican from Dallas, a mayor of Dallas, came back and ran the Financial Services Roundtable, is a strong supporter--strong supporter--of this. Are you telling me Steve does not care about our sovereignty? I would like you to tell Steve that. He cares very much about our sovereignty. That is why it is a phony issue--a fraudulent phony issue.

We have it within our power now to join the rest of the world. I think 148 nations--148 countries--have now signed this.

I was recently in China, and I was meeting with disability groups there. China signed the convention. I met with some disability groups that are not governmental, NGOs, which is interesting. This is now springing up in China.

I also met with a person who is the head of the federation of disability groups in China. Madam Zhang, Haidi Zhang, is a very prominent woman in China, known all over the country because she is a famous author. She now heads this federation. They all told me they want the United States to be a part of this because it would strengthen them in working to change in their country, to make their country better and more supportive of disability rights.

I questioned that because some people said to me here: Well, we do not need to join this treaty. We can work with countries one-on-one. You are going to work with 100 countries one-on-one? I do not think we have the personnel to do that.

But here is what someone said to me who brought it home to me. They said: Look, if you come to our country and you want to discuss disability policy from the standpoint of your laws--the Americans with Disabilities Act--and we are a part of the CRPD, then we are talking two different languages. But if you are a part of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, we speak the same language. Then we can start talking about how we work together to enhance the rights and opportunities of people with disabilities, not just in China but in Africa.

Earlier this year, 21 countries met in Malawi on this issue. I was asked to come to speak. I could not because I was here in the Senate. They desperately want the Americans--us--to be a part of this, to lend our expertise, our leadership--not as a single country but with other countries--to, again, advance the cause of the rights of people with disabilities in accommodations, accessibility.

This spring I was in Colombia--Cartagena--on a trip with other Senators, Congressmen, and I remember our colleague Senator Johnson from South Dakota and his wife were there. I remember Mrs. Johnson-- Barbara--saying: Boy, I can't wait to get back to the United States because it is hard for Tim using his wheelchair to get around anywhere.

This is what I mean. We have to start working with these other countries to help them change their systems, their accessibility.

I have talked to many veterans who would like to travel with their families or maybe even work overseas. They cannot do it. They are not accessible. I have talked to students who got a Fulbright scholarship or one of those things to go to another country, but since they were disabled, they could not take advantage of it because there were not accessible places for them to live or to get around.

So if we are proud--and we should be--proud of the work we have done as a nation, bipartisanly--there has never been a partisan hint to anything we have ever done with disability policy in this country. So if we are proud of what we have done in this country to enhance the well-being of people with disabilities, to make sure they have a full and meaningful life, that they contribute to the best of their ability, to get them out of institutions, living in the community, working in jobs--not subminimum-wage, dead-end jobs, but I mean real jobs; and we have come a long way--so if we are proud of it, why shouldn't we be proud enough to join with the rest of the world in saying: Let's work together. Let's work together to provide in other countries that same kind of support and accessibility for people with disabilities?

It is not going to happen overnight. I understand that. Sometimes these things take a long time. This weekend will be the 24th anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

As I travel around, one thing that always catches my eye--when I see new buildings, new housing, and stuff--is it accessible? I just saw some this weekend--new housing, multifamily housing--not accessible. Well, someone said to me: Well, you know, maybe people with disabilities can't live here, but there are plenty of other places. I said: Well, that is not the point. What if I want to live there and I want to invite my nephew who is a paraplegic to come visit me and have dinner? He can't even get in the door. Oh, well, that kind of puts a different color on it. I cannot even associate with people with disabilities because they cannot even come over to my house.

So while we have come a long way, we have things we have to do. But we have to, again, be a part of this global effort to advance the cause of people with disabilities. Other countries are starting to catch on. They are starting to do things--some countries more than others. This treaty, and our joining it, means that we join with them in common effort--in common effort--to make sure people with disabilities are not shunted aside any longer.

I think it is beneath us as Senators, beneath us as a nation, to somehow not accede to this treaty because of phony issues such as sovereignty.

We can take care of that, as we have in other treaties. Or homeschooling or abortion. We can take care of that. We can say our laws are supreme. If someone says, ``Well, the U.N. might change it in the future,'' so what? It does not make any difference what they change. It does not affect our sovereignty whatsoever. So I think it is beneath us if we do not adopt this treaty, if we do not become a part of this global effort.

Ronald Reagan referred to America as the ``shining city on a hill.'' Well, I think it is. Nowhere is America more of a shining city on a hill than in how we treat our citizens with disabilities. We have the gold standard. Now it is time to empower us to work throughout the world, to assist countries as they implement the treaty founded on the rights and principles embedded in the Americans with Disabilities Act.

It is time for us to reassert our global leadership in disability policy. So let's rise above partnership. Let's rise above some unknown fear that something might happen in the future. Let's rise above those narrow interests that say ``Well, we will lose our sovereignty'' or something like that or all of those other phony issues that are coming up because they want to undermine the treaty. We can rise above

that, just as we have done many times in the past, just as we did in 1999 when we became a part of a convention on the worst forms of child labor. We put reservations and we put understandings and declarations in that convention, by the way. So we spelled out how we were adapting that to our own Nation. We can do the same with this one too.

I have been told--I do not know if this is true--I have been told that some say: Well, it does not make any difference what we put in there; there are some people who will not vote for it, period.

Well, are those the same people who would not vote for the Americans With Disabilities Act if we were to bring it to the floor today? Would they say: No, we should not change our policies that people with disabilities had to be institutionalized; that they do not deserve to work in the workplace; that they do not deserve the freedom to travel on buses that are accessible and trains that are accessible or subways that are accessible; that we do not need curb cuts and we do not need widened doors. No, we do not need to do any of that stuff.

Would that be what they would say today if the Americans with Disabilities Act were on the floor? Any Senator who says: I like the Americans with Disabilities Act, and I think it has done a good thing for our country--anyone who says that ought to be voting for this treaty. That is what we intend. That is what we would do--reject that kind of fear and be a part of this global effort.

Again, I commend Senator Menendez for his great leadership on this issue. I am hopeful that before we leave here next week, we might reach a time agreement with the other side to have a meaningful debate, have amendments. There is nothing wrong with having some amendments on this if people have amendments that are germane to the treaty. Let's debate those in a timely fashion and then have a vote on it. We need to do this. We need to do this to reassert America's leadership worldwide on disability policy.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, the strength of my State of Iowa lies in its vibrant local communities, where citizens come together to foster economic development, make smart investments to expand opportunity, and take the initiative to improve the health and well- being of residents. Over the decades, I have witnessed the growth and revitalization of so many communities across my State. And it has been deeply gratifying to see how my work in Congress has supported these local efforts.

I have always believed in accountability for public officials, and this, my final year in the Senate, is an appropriate time to give an accounting of my work across four decades representing Iowa in Congress. I take pride in accomplishments that have been national in scope--for instance, passing the Americans with Disabilities Act and spearheading successful farm bills. But I take a very special pride in projects that have made a big difference in local communities across my State.

Today, I would like to give an accounting of my work with leaders and residents of Howard County to build a legacy of a stronger local economy, better schools and educational opportunities, and a healthier, safer community.

Between 2001 and 2013, the creative leadership in your community has worked with me to successfully acquire financial assistance from programs I have fought hard to support, which have provided more than $12.4 million to the local economy.

Of course my favorite memories of working together have to include their tremendous success in obtaining funds from a variety of programs I fought for including farm bill funding, public safety programs, and firefighter safety equipment.

Among the highlights:

School grants: Every child in Iowa deserves to be educated in a classroom that is safe, accessible, and modern. That is why, for the past decade and a half, I have secured funding for the innovative Iowa Demonstration Construction Grant Program--better known among educators in Iowa as Harkin grants for public schools construction and renovation. Across 15 years, Harkin grants worth more than $132 million have helped school districts to fund a range of renovation and repair efforts--everything from updating fire safety systems to building new schools. In many cases, these Federal

dollars have served as the needed incentive to leverage local public and private dollars, so it often has a tremendous multiplier effect within a school district. Over the years, Howard County has received $91,360 in Harkin grants. Similarly, schools in Howard County have received funds that I designated for Iowa Star Schools for technology totaling $35,000.

Disaster mitigation and prevention: In 1993, when historic floods ripped through Iowa, it became clear to me that the national emergency- response infrastructure was woefully inadequate to meet the needs of Iowans in flood-ravaged communities. I went to work dramatically expanding the Federal Emergency Management Agency's hazard mitigation program, which helps communities reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters and enables mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery period. Disaster relief means more than helping people and businesses get back on their feet after a disaster, it means doing our best to prevent the same predictable flood or other catastrophe from recurring in the future. The hazard mitigation program that I helped create in 1993 provided critical support to Iowa communities impacted by the devastating floods of 2008. Howard County has received over $2.7 million to remediate and prevent widespread destruction from natural disasters.

Agricultural and rural development: Because I grew up in a small town in rural Iowa, I have always been a loyal friend and fierce advocate for family farmers and rural communities. I have been a member of the House or Senate Agriculture Committee for 40 years--including more than 10 years as chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Across the decades, I have championed farm policies for Iowans that include effective farm income protection and commodity programs; strong, progressive conservation assistance for agricultural producers; renewable energy opportunities; and robust economic development in our rural communities. Since 1991, through various programs authorized through the farm bill, Howard County has received more than $7.6 million from a variety of farm bill programs.

Keeping Iowa communities safe: I also firmly believe that our first responders need to be appropriately trained and equipped, able to respond to both local emergencies and to statewide challenges such as the methamphetamine epidemic. Since 2001, Howard County's fire departments have received over $1.5 million for firefighter safety and operations equipment and over $337,000 in public safety dollars.

Disability rights: Growing up, I loved and admired my brother Frank, who was deaf. But I was deeply disturbed by the discrimination and obstacles he faced every day. That is why I have always been a passionate advocate for full equality for people with disabilities. As the primary author of the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, and the ADA Amendments Act, I have had four guiding goals for our fellow citizens with disabilities: equal opportunity, full participation, independent living and economic self-sufficiency. Nearly a quarter century since passage of the ADA, I see remarkable changes in communities everywhere I go in Iowa--not just in curb cuts or closed captioned television, but in the full participation of people with disabilities in our society and economy, folks who at long last have the opportunity to contribute their talents and to be fully included. These changes have increased economic opportunities for all citizens of Howard County, both those with and without disabilities. And they make us proud to be a part of a community and country that respects the worth and civil rights of all of our citizens.

This is at least a partial accounting of my work on behalf of Iowa, and specifically Howard County, during my time in Congress. In every case, this work has been about partnerships, cooperation, and empowering folks at the State and local level, including in Howard County, to fulfill their own dreams and initiatives. And, of course, this work is never complete. Even after I retire from the Senate, I have no intention of retiring from the fight for a better, fairer, richer Iowa. I will always be profoundly grateful for the opportunity to serve the people of Iowa as their Senator.

Madam President, the strength of my State of Iowa lies in its vibrant local communities, where citizens come together to foster economic development, make smart investments to expand opportunity, and take the initiative to improve the health and well- being of residents. Over the decades, I have witnessed the growth and revitalization of so many communities across my State. And it has been deeply gratifying to see how my work in Congress has supported these local efforts.

I have always believed in accountability for public officials, and this, my final year in the Senate, is an appropriate time to give an accounting of my work across four decades representing Iowa in Congress. I take pride in accomplishments that have been national in scope--for instance, passing the Americans with Disabilities Act and spearheading successful farm bills. But I take a very special pride in projects that have made a big difference in local communities across my State.

Today, I would like to give an accounting of my work with leaders and residents of Wright County to build a legacy of a stronger local economy, better schools and educational opportunities, and a healthier, safer community.

Between 2001 and 2013, the creative leadership in your community has worked with me to successfully acquire financial assistance from programs I have fought hard to support, which have provided more than $9.5 million to the local economy.

Of course, one of my favorite memories of working together is the tremendous success that the Iowa Specialty Hospital Belmond had in obtaining a $21.6 million Community Facility Grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Development Office to renovate the hospital facility.

Among the highlights:

School grants: Every child in Iowa deserves to be educated in a classroom that is safe, accessible, and modern. That is why, for the past decade and a half, I have secured funding for the innovative Iowa Demonstration Construction Grant Program--better known among educators in Iowa as Harkin grants for public schools construction and renovation. Across 15 years, Harkin grants worth more than $132 million have helped school districts to fund a range of renovation and repair efforts--everything from updating fire safety systems to building new schools. In many cases, these Federal dollars have served as the needed incentive to leverage local public and private dollars, so it often has a tremendous multiplier effect within a school district. Over the years, Wright County has received $967,434 in Harkin grants. Similarly, schools in Wright County have received funds that I designated for Iowa Star Schools for technology totaling $25,000.

Disaster mitigation and prevention: In 1993, when historic floods ripped through Iowa, it became clear to me that the national emergency- response infrastructure was woefully inadequate to meet the needs of Iowans in flood-ravaged communities. I went to work dramatically expanding the Federal Emergency Management Agency's hazard mitigation program, which helps communities reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters and enables mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery period. Disaster relief means more than helping people and businesses get back on their feet after a disaster, it means doing our best to prevent the same predictable flood or other catastrophe from recurring in the future. The hazard mitigation program that I helped create in 1993 provided critical support to Iowa communities impacted by the devastating floods of 2008. Wright County has received over $5 million to remediate and prevent widespread destruction from natural disasters.

Agricultural and rural development: Because I grew up in a small town in rural Iowa, I have always been a loyal friend and fierce advocate for family farmers and rural communities. I have been a member of the House or Senate Agriculture Committee for 40 years--

including more than 10 years as chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Across the decades, I have championed farm policies for Iowans that include effective farm income protection and commodity programs; strong, progressive conservation assistance for agricultural producers; renewable energy opportunities; and robust economic development in our rural communities. Since 1991, through various programs authorized through the farm bill, Wright County has received more than $22 million from a variety of farm bill loan and grant programs.

Keeping Iowa communities safe: I also firmly believe that our first responders need to be appropriately trained and equipped, able to respond to both local emergencies and to statewide challenges such as, for instance, the methamphetamine epidemic. Since 2001, Wright County's fire departments have received over $168,000 for firefighter safety and operations equipment.

Disability rights: Growing up, I loved and admired my brother Frank, who was deaf. But I was deeply disturbed by the discrimination and obstacles he faced every day. That is why I have always been a passionate advocate for full equality for people with disabilities. As the primary author of the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, and the ADA Amendments Act, I have had four guiding goals for our fellow citizens with disabilities: equal opportunity, full participation, independent living and economic self-sufficiency. Nearly a quarter century since passage of the ADA, I see remarkable changes in communities everywhere I go in Iowa not just in curb cuts or closed captioned television, but in the full participation of people with disabilities in our society and economy, folks who at long last have the opportunity to contribute their talents and to be fully included. These changes have increased economic opportunities for all citizens of Wright County, both those with and without disabilities. And they make us proud to be a part of a community and country that respects the worth and civil rights of all of our citizens.

This is at least a partial accounting of my work on behalf of Iowa, and specifically Wright County, during my time in Congress. In every case, this work has been about partnerships, cooperation, and empowering folks at the State and local level, including in Wright County, to fulfill their own dreams and initiatives. And, of course, this work is never complete. Even after I retire from the Senate, I have no intention of retiring from the fight for a better, fairer, richer Iowa. I will always be profoundly grateful for the opportunity to serve the people of Iowa as their Senator.

Mr. President, I want to bring to our attention a large and growing problem laced by American workers today that has negative consequences for working families and our national economy. They are hourly service workers holding jobs that we all rely on--the folks who are serving customers in stores and restaurants, who are cleaning our offices and hotels, who are making sure that shelves are stocked, food is cooked properly, and businesses run smoothly. They are also white collar workers: professionals, managers, teachers, and more. All of these workers want to go to work and be successful at their jobs. But today, too many do not have access to one of

the most basic parts of a job: a stable, predictable schedule.

For hourly service workers, jobs are often scheduled on a ``just in time'' basis. This means that schedules are given out last minute, workers are often required to be on call, and schedules and the number of assigned hours vary week to week and month to month. Schedules are often made with no input from workers or consideration for family needs or even sleep time. A worker may have 8 hours of work one week, 24 hours the next week, and no hours for the next two weeks. A worker may have the night shift followed by the day shift, or a split shift with a few hours in the morning and a few more hours in the evening. A worker may show up after arranging and paying for child care and taking a 2 hour trip by public transportation, only to be sent home for lack of work. Assigned time on schedules is a perk, while being left off the schedule is a punishment.

These abusive scheduling practices mean that workers often can't predict their income, which makes it very difficult to budget and pay bills. It also wreaks havoc on family life. Working parents can't be home for family dinner, help with afternoon homework, or put kids to bed. Workers with elderly parents or relatives who are in need of care cannot be available when they are needed. And the inability to predict a schedule means that taking classes or getting a second job to further one's career or increase income become difficult to impossible. And yet, because these practices have become so common among hourly service jobs, moving to a different job is not an option. Workers are simply stuck.

Meanwhile, white collar workers are working longer than ever. They have to stay late long into the night and come in on the weekends. If they want a 40-hour workweek or time with family, they are too often criticized as uncommitted to the job. They, too, miss family dinners and other family events. They, too, are unable to be with children or elders when their care is required.

What these workers have in common is their lack of control over their hours and their schedules. That is why I have joined with Senator Warren and Representatives George Miller and Rosa DeLauro to introduce the ``Schedules That Work Act.'' This bill will help workers to meet scheduling challenges in ways that respect their needs and the needs of businesses.

First, the bill will allow all workers, both hourly and salaried in any job or industry, to make requests about their schedules, and it will prohibit retaliation against them for doing so. Employers will be required to engage in an interactive process in response to scheduling requests--much like that required to determine reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. An employer has to consider a request, consider alternatives, and provide an answer to a worker's request. Certain requests will have some extra consideration: if an employee makes a request because of caregiving duties, to deal with a serious health condition, to take a career- related training or education course, or to meet the demands of a second job in the case of part-time workers, then an employer must have a bona fide business reason to deny the request. This ``right to request'' will open a line of communication that ensures workers have a voice but respects employers' business needs.

Second, the Schedules That Work Act will ensure that workers in retail, food service, and janitorial and cleaning jobs are paid when they are required to report in or be on call. If a worker is scheduled for at least four hours and reports to work, the worker must be paid for at least four hours, even if she is sent home early. An employer will have to provide an extra hour's pay if he requires an employee to be on call. If an employer schedules a ``split shift''--with non- consecutive shifts within a single day--a worker will earn an extra hour's pay.

Finally, this bill will require 2 weeks' advance notice of schedules for workers in retail, food service, and janitorial jobs. If changes are made with less than 24 hours' notice, employers will be required to provide an extra hour's pay. While employers can continue to make changes to schedules, we hope that this requirement will reduce the chaos that can be created by continual last-minute scheduling.

A schedule should be a basic part of almost any job. Predictability and stability in hours helps workers meet their personal and family demands. In turn, workers are more likely to stay in their jobs, reducing the expensive turnover that can cost businesses dearly A simple consideration like advance notice of a schedule goes a long way toward creating good will, fostering loyalty, and raising morale among employees.

What this bill is really about, at its heart, is respect. Respect for workers' lives and businesses' needs. I encourage all of my Senate colleagues to join me on this bill.

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

Mr. President, I want to bring to our attention a large and growing problem laced by American workers today that has negative consequences for working families and our national economy. They are hourly service workers holding jobs that we all rely on--the folks who are serving customers in stores and restaurants, who are cleaning our offices and hotels, who are making sure that shelves are stocked, food is cooked properly, and businesses run smoothly. They are also white collar workers: professionals, managers, teachers, and more. All of these workers want to go to work and be successful at their jobs. But today, too many do not have access to one of

the most basic parts of a job: a stable, predictable schedule.

For hourly service workers, jobs are often scheduled on a ``just in time'' basis. This means that schedules are given out last minute, workers are often required to be on call, and schedules and the number of assigned hours vary week to week and month to month. Schedules are often made with no input from workers or consideration for family needs or even sleep time. A worker may have 8 hours of work one week, 24 hours the next week, and no hours for the next two weeks. A worker may have the night shift followed by the day shift, or a split shift with a few hours in the morning and a few more hours in the evening. A worker may show up after arranging and paying for child care and taking a 2 hour trip by public transportation, only to be sent home for lack of work. Assigned time on schedules is a perk, while being left off the schedule is a punishment.

These abusive scheduling practices mean that workers often can't predict their income, which makes it very difficult to budget and pay bills. It also wreaks havoc on family life. Working parents can't be home for family dinner, help with afternoon homework, or put kids to bed. Workers with elderly parents or relatives who are in need of care cannot be available when they are needed. And the inability to predict a schedule means that taking classes or getting a second job to further one's career or increase income become difficult to impossible. And yet, because these practices have become so common among hourly service jobs, moving to a different job is not an option. Workers are simply stuck.

Meanwhile, white collar workers are working longer than ever. They have to stay late long into the night and come in on the weekends. If they want a 40-hour workweek or time with family, they are too often criticized as uncommitted to the job. They, too, miss family dinners and other family events. They, too, are unable to be with children or elders when their care is required.

What these workers have in common is their lack of control over their hours and their schedules. That is why I have joined with Senator Warren and Representatives George Miller and Rosa DeLauro to introduce the ``Schedules That Work Act.'' This bill will help workers to meet scheduling challenges in ways that respect their needs and the needs of businesses.

First, the bill will allow all workers, both hourly and salaried in any job or industry, to make requests about their schedules, and it will prohibit retaliation against them for doing so. Employers will be required to engage in an interactive process in response to scheduling requests--much like that required to determine reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. An employer has to consider a request, consider alternatives, and provide an answer to a worker's request. Certain requests will have some extra consideration: if an employee makes a request because of caregiving duties, to deal with a serious health condition, to take a career- related training or education course, or to meet the demands of a second job in the case of part-time workers, then an employer must have a bona fide business reason to deny the request. This ``right to request'' will open a line of communication that ensures workers have a voice but respects employers' business needs.

Second, the Schedules That Work Act will ensure that workers in retail, food service, and janitorial and cleaning jobs are paid when they are required to report in or be on call. If a worker is scheduled for at least four hours and reports to work, the worker must be paid for at least four hours, even if she is sent home early. An employer will have to provide an extra hour's pay if he requires an employee to be on call. If an employer schedules a ``split shift''--with non- consecutive shifts within a single day--a worker will earn an extra hour's pay.

Finally, this bill will require 2 weeks' advance notice of schedules for workers in retail, food service, and janitorial jobs. If changes are made with less than 24 hours' notice, employers will be required to provide an extra hour's pay. While employers can continue to make changes to schedules, we hope that this requirement will reduce the chaos that can be created by continual last-minute scheduling.

A schedule should be a basic part of almost any job. Predictability and stability in hours helps workers meet their personal and family demands. In turn, workers are more likely to stay in their jobs, reducing the expensive turnover that can cost businesses dearly A simple consideration like advance notice of a schedule goes a long way toward creating good will, fostering loyalty, and raising morale among employees.

What this bill is really about, at its heart, is respect. Respect for workers' lives and businesses' needs. I encourage all of my Senate colleagues to join me on this bill.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Anita Grassl and Angela West, interns with the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of today's session.

Mr. President, the strength of my State of Iowa lies in its vibrant local communities, where citizens come together to foster economic development, make smart investments to expand opportunity, and take the initiative to improve the health and well- being of residents. Over the decades, I have witnessed the growth and revitalization of so many communities across my State. And it has been deeply gratifying to see how my work in Congress has supported these local efforts.

I have always believed in accountability for public officials, and this, my final year in the Senate, is an appropriate time to give an accounting of my work across four decades representing Iowa in Congress. I take pride in accomplishments that have been national in scope--for instance, passing the Americans with Disabilities Act and spearheading successful farm bills. But I take a very special pride in projects that have made a big difference in local communities across my State.

Today, I would like to give an accounting of my work with leaders and

residents of Winnebago County to build a legacy of a stronger local economy, better schools and educational opportunities, and a healthier, safer community.

Between 2001 and 2013, the creative leadership in your community has worked with me to secure funding in Winnebago County worth over $1.2 million and successfully acquired financial assistance from programs I have fought hard to support, which have provided more than $28 million to the local economy.

Of course my favorite memory of working together has to be the success that the county has had in securing over $9.4 million funds for the Heartland Power Cooperative through programs I fought for at the Federal Emergency Management Agency and in past farm bills.

Among the highlights:

School grants: Every child in Iowa deserves to be educated in a classroom that is safe, accessible, and modern. That is why, for the past decade and a half, I have secured funding for the innovative Iowa Demonstration Construction Grant Program--better known among educators in Iowa as Harkin grants for public schools construction and renovation. Across 15 years, Harkin grants worth more than $132 million have helped school districts to fund a range of renovation and repair efforts--everything from updating fire safety systems to building new schools. In many cases, these Federal dollars have served as the needed incentive to leverage local public and private dollars, so it often has a tremendous multiplier effect within a school district. Over the years, Winnebago County has received $1,083,026 in Harkin grants.

Disaster mitigation and prevention: In 1993, when historic floods ripped through Iowa, it became clear to me that the national emergency- response infrastructure was woefully inadequate to meet the needs of Iowans in flood-ravaged communities. I went to work dramatically expanding the Federal Emergency Management Agency's hazard mitigation program, which helps communities reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters and enables mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery period. Disaster relief means more than helping people and businesses get back on their feet after a disaster, it means doing our best to prevent the same predictable flood or other catastrophe from recurring in the future. The hazard mitigation program that I helped create in 1993 provided critical support to Iowa communities impacted by the devastating floods of 2008. Winnebago County has received over $8.2 million to remediate and prevent widespread destruction from natural disasters.

Agricultural and rural development: Because I grew up in a small town in rural Iowa, I have always been a loyal friend and fierce advocate for family farmers and rural communities. I have been a member of the House or Senate Agriculture Committee for 40 years--including more than 10 years as chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Across the decades, I have championed farm policies for Iowans that include effective farm income protection and commodity programs; strong, progressive conservation assistance for agricultural producers; renewable energy opportunities; and robust economic development in our rural communities. Since 1991, through various programs authorized through the farm bill, Winnebago County has received more than $19 million from a variety of farm bill loan and grant programs.

Keeping Iowa communities safe: I also firmly believe that our first responders need to be appropriately trained and equipped, able to respond to both local emergencies and to statewide challenges such as, for instance, the methamphetamine epidemic. Since 2001, Winnebago County's fire departments have received over $623,971 for firefighter safety and operations equipment.

Wellness and health care: Improving the health and wellness of all Americans has been something I have been passionate about for decades. That is why I fought to dramatically increase funding for disease prevention, innovative medical research, and a whole range of initiatives to improve the health of individuals and families not only at the doctor's office but also in our communities, schools, and workplaces. I am so proud that Americans have better access to clinical preventive services, nutritious food, smoke-free environments, safe places to engage in physical activity, and information to make healthy decisions for themselves and their families. These efforts not only save lives, they will also save money for generations to come thanks to the prevention of costly chronic diseases, which account for a whopping 75 percent of annual health care costs. I am pleased that Winnebago County has recognized this important issue by securing $120,000 for community wellness activities.

Disability rights: Growing up, I loved and admired my brother Frank, who was deaf. But I was deeply disturbed by the discrimination and obstacles he faced every day. That is why I have always been a passionate advocate for full equality for people with disabilities. As the primary author of the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, and the ADA Amendments Act, I have had four guiding goals for our fellow citizens with disabilities: equal opportunity, full participation, independent living and economic self-sufficiency. Nearly a quarter century since passage of the ADA, I see remarkable changes in communities everywhere I go in Iowa--not just in curb cuts or closed captioned television, but in the full participation of people with disabilities in our society and economy, folks who at long last have the opportunity to contribute their talents and to be fully included. These changes have increased economic opportunities for all citizens of Winnebago County, both those with and without disabilities. And they make us proud to be a part of a community and country that respects the worth and civil rights of all of our citizens.

This is at least a partial accounting of my work on behalf of Iowa, and specifically Winnebago County, during my time in Congress. In every case, this work has been about partnerships, cooperation, and empowering folks at the State and local level, including in Winnebago County, to fulfill their own dreams and initiatives. And, of course, this work is never complete. Even after I retire from the Senate, I have no intention of retiring from the fight for a better, fairer, richer Iowa. I will always be profoundly grateful for the opportunity to serve the people of Iowa as their Senator.

Mr. President, the strength of my State of Iowa lies in its vibrant local communities, where citizens come together to foster economic development, make smart investments to expand opportunity, and take the initiative to improve the health and well- being of residents. Over the decades, I have witnessed the growth and revitalization of so many communities across my State. And it has been deeply gratifying to see how my work in Congress has supported these local efforts.

I have always believed in accountability for public officials, and this, my final year in the Senate, is an appropriate time to give an accounting of my work across four decades representing Iowa in Congress. I take pride in accomplishments that have been national in scope--for instance, passing the Americans with Disabilities Act and spearheading successful farm bills. But I take a very special pride in projects that have made a big difference in local communities across my State.

Today, I would like to give an accounting of my work with leaders and residents of Allamakee County to build a legacy of a stronger local economy, better schools and educational opportunities, and a healthier, safer community.

Between 2001 and 2013, the creative leadership in your community has worked with me to successfully acquire financial assistance from programs I have fought hard to support, which have provided more than $26 million to the local economy.

Of course my favorite memory of working together has to be the community's success in obtaining funding for school construction, fire safety, technology, and other improvements through Harkin school construction grants, the Star Schools program, and

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funds.

Among the highlights:

School grants: Every child in Iowa deserves to be educated in a classroom that is safe, accessible, and modern. That is why, for the past decade and a half, I have secured funding for the innovative Iowa Demonstration Construction Grant Program--better known among educators in Iowa as Harkin grants for public schools construction and renovation. Across 15 years, Harkin grants worth more than $132 million have helped school districts to fund a range of renovation and repair efforts--everything from updating fire safety systems to building new schools. In many cases, these Federal dollars have served as the needed incentive to leverage local public and private dollars, so it often has a tremendous multiplier effect within a school district. Over the years, Allamakee County has received $1,792,068 in Harkin grants. Similarly, schools in Allamakee County have received funds that I designated for Iowa Star Schools for technology totaling $59,494. Finally, Allamakee schools received more than $280,000 through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 for academic and learning support.

Agricultural and rural development: Because I grew up in a small town in rural Iowa, I have always been a loyal friend and fierce advocate for family farmers and rural communities. I have been a member of the House or Senate Agriculture Committee for 40 years--including more than 10 years as chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Across the decades, I have championed farm policies for Iowans that include effective farm income protection and commodity programs; strong, progressive conservation assistance for agricultural producers; renewable energy opportunities; and robust economic development in our rural communities. Since 1991, through various programs authorized through the farm bill, Allamakee County has received more than $1.3 million from a variety of farm bill programs.

Keeping Iowa communities safe: I also firmly believe that our first responders need to be appropriately trained and equipped, able to respond to both local emergencies and to statewide challenges such as, for instance, the methamphetamine epidemic. Since 2001, Allamakee County's fire departments have received over $900,000 for firefighter safety and operations equipment.

Disability rights: Growing up, I loved and admired my brother Frank, who was deaf. But I was deeply disturbed by the discrimination and obstacles he faced every day. That is why I have always been a passionate advocate for full equality for people with disabilities. As the primary author of the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, and the ADA Amendments Act, I have had four guiding goals for our fellow citizens with disabilities: equal opportunity, full participation, independent living and economic self-sufficiency. Nearly a quarter century since passage of the ADA, I see remarkable changes in communities everywhere I go in Iowa--not just in curb cuts or closed captioned television, but in the full participation of people with disabilities in our society and economy, folks who at long last have the opportunity to contribute their talents and to be fully included. These changes have increased economic opportunities for all citizens of Allamakee County, both those with and without disabilities. And they make us proud to be a part of a community and country that respects the worth and civil rights of all of our citizens.

This is at least a partial accounting of my work on behalf of Iowa, and specifically Allamakee County, during my time in Congress. In every case, this work has been about partnerships, cooperation, and empowering folks at the State and local level, including in Allamakee County, to fulfill their own dreams and initiatives. And, of course, this work is never complete. Even after I retire from the Senate, I have no intention of retiring from the fight for a better, fairer, richer Iowa. I will always be profoundly grateful for the opportunity to serve the people of Iowa as their Senator.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet on July 22, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Coal Miners' Struggle for Justice: How Unethical Legal and Medical Practices Stack the Deck Against Black Lung Claimants.''

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Sindey Holcomb 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 executive session on Wednesday, July 23, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to mark up H.R. 2083, Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act; S. 315, Paul D. Wellstone Muscular Dystrophy Community Assistance, Research and Education, MD-CARE, Amendments of 2013; S. 2154, Emergency Medical Services for Children Reauthorization Act of 2014; S. 531, Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Act; S. 2405, Trauma Systems and Regionalization of Emergency Care Reauthorization Act; S. 2406, Improving Trauma Care Act of 2014; S. 2539, Traumatic Brain Injury Reauthorization Act of 2014; S. 2511, A bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974; as well as any additional nominations cleared for action.

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 on July 24, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Role of States in Higher Education.''

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Aissa Canchola of the committee staff on (202) 224-2009.