Al Franken

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015. I am a proud cosponsor of this bicameral, bipartisan bill which brings much-needed reform to the Federal Government's surveillance programs, including an end to the bulk data collection program that the intelligence community has said is not necessary, that the public has said they don't support, and that the Second Circuit has ruled as unlawful. I am particularly proud to have developed the bill's transparency provisions with my friend Senator Dean Heller of Nevada. We are greatly indebted to Senator Lee and to Senator Leahy for their leadership and their tireless work. Americans understand, as I do, that our job here is to strike an appropriate balance, making sure, on the one hand, that we are safeguarding our national security, without trampling on our citizens' fundamental privacy rights, on the other hand. But the public cannot know if we succeed in striking that balance if they do not even have the most basic information about our major surveillance programs. That is why my focus has been on transparency, because I want to make sure that the American people are able to decide for themselves whether we are getting this right. I support the USA FREEDOM Act because it moves us in the right direction on all of these fronts. On June 1, several national security authorities will expire. The House acted responsibly and passed USA FREEDOM, a bill that reflects the combined efforts and agreement of Republicans and Democrats, members of the intelligence and law enforcement communities, and advocates for privacy and civil liberties, as well as members of the tech sector and business communities. This legislation ensures that the necessary authorities continue in force through 2019, and it makes important reforms that will actually improve national security. You do not need to take my word for that. The Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General have told us, in no uncertain terms, that we ought to pass the USA FREEDOM Act and promptly. Yet some of my colleagues are attempting to present us with a choice between reauthorization of the soon-to-expire authorities with no reform whatsoever or complete expiration of those authorities. That is profoundly unfortunate, because we have a compromise bill that has overwhelming support and was overwhelmingly approved by the House of Representatives by a vote of 338 to 88. It draws broad-based support from business, from civil society, and within the government. I believe that the only thing that would stop this bill from garnering similar strong bipartisan support here in the Senate is if Republican leaders who oppose this bill pressure my Republican colleagues to filibuster. I really hope that does not happen. I hope it does not happen because USA FREEDOM's reforms represent real and meaningful progress. The bill ends the old program for the bulk collection of telephone metadata, which, according to reports discussed at a hearing last year, principally gathered call records from landlines. It replaces that program with a more targeted approach that permits the collection of call detail records, including prospective collection of those records. You get a warrant, and you collect those prospectively, based on the government's reasonable, articulable suspicion of a link to international terrorism. Now, I believe that is a much more sensible approach. I know that some of my colleagues disagree. Last November, one of my colleagues suggested that bulk collection is preferable to a targeted approach because American's privacy would be at risk if the government were ``going to have to go to those companies and ask for the data.'' But of course, no matter what, we have to go to the companies and ask them for the data. The records at issue here are the phone company's business records. That is what they are. I should also note that those companies have both legal and business reasons for why they retain and protect these records as they do, from the potential for billing disputes to commercial analytics to regulatory concerns. The FCC regulations require them to hold on to telephone call records for 18 months. None of that has changed. It bears emphasizing that the relationship USA FREEDOM calls for between phone companies and the government is nothing new. Our Nation's law enforcement and intelligence agencies have long worked with phone companies to obtain specific records, either historic or prospective records, when conducting domestic criminal investigations or carrying out sensitive national security investigations such as FISA wiretaps. So we have been doing this for a long time. The intelligence community, national security, law enforcement experts, and American businesses, not to mention the House of Representatives, all understand that we have to strike the right balance. We need to safeguard our national security, but we need to do it in ways that do not unduly tread on privacy and civil liberties. Leaders across these different public and private sectors have managed to come together to strike that balance in the USA FREEDOM Act. That is where my work with Senator Heller comes in. We recognized that when the public lacks even a rough sense of the scope of the government's surveillance programs, they have no way of knowing if the government is getting that balance right. So there needs to be more transparency. Since the Snowden revelations came to light 2 years ago, a steady stream of news reports has provided details about NSA programs that collect information about both foreign nationals and the American people. Despite these disclosures, it remains impossible for the American people to get even a basic sense of the real size and scope of these programs. Americans still don't know the number of people whose information has been collected under these programs. They have no sense of the extent to which U.S. persons are affected and, particularly, have no way of knowing how often the government has searched that information, such as call detail records of Americans. Senator Heller and I crafted transparency provisions to make sure Americans get that kind of information. That way the American people can better judge the government's surveillance programs for themselves. Under USA FREEDOM, the government will be required to issue detailed annual reports for each of the surveillance authorities at issue. Importantly, the government will have to tell the public how many people have had their information collected, and for certain authorities--like those permitting the targeted collection of call detail records or the communications of foreigners abroad--the government will also have to say how many times it has run searches for Americans' data. The USA FREEDOM Act doesn't just require the government to be more transparent. We also make it possible for American businesses to provide their customers with more information about what they are asked to turn over to the government. This is not only good for transparency, it is good for our economy. It has been estimated that the Snowden revelations are costing American companies billions of dollars because people have lost trust in those companies, often assuming that all companies are handing over all of their information to the government. So by allowing companies to report the size and scope of the government's requests, the public can get a better sense of what information is actually being turned over, and the bill makes clear that a company that has not received any national security requests from the government is free to say so. All of this will calm fears, both here and abroad, and allow American companies to better compete with their foreign counterparts. The provisions Senator Heller and I wrote will expand the options that companies have to issue their own transparency reports and allow companies to issue those reports more quickly. But we also listened to the intelligence community to make sure we were striking the right balance and ensuring that ongoing investigations are not jeopardized by additional transparency. Now, look, to get the broad, bipartisan support we needed, Senator Heller and I had to compromise a great deal. We didn't get everything we wanted when we initially negotiated our provisions last year, and we had to compromise further still this year, particularly with regard to government reporting under section 702, which authorizes the collection, for intelligence purposes, of communications of foreign persons abroad. I am disappointed the bill doesn't include all of the requirements we agreed on last year and that were included in the Senate bill last Congress, which had 58 votes. But I am committed to pressing my colleagues to revisit this issue in the future--hopefully before the sunset of section 702--in 2017. That, of course, is the Internet traffic of foreign persons abroad who are suspected of being terrorists. But in the meantime, the good news is that after all the give-and- take, our provisions that did get included in the bill will usher in a new era of transparency about our Nation's surveillance agencies. They will allow the American public to see--on an annual basis--whether the government really makes good on its promise to end bulk collection, and they will give those of us in Congress important tools as we work to continually improve our country's laws. The transparency provisions are an essential part of USA FREEDOM, and the bill overall is a step in the right direction for reforming our Nation's intelligence laws. It is a step that the House has already taken on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis. It is a step that the Senate should take as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my counsel detailee, Samantha Chaifetz, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this session of Congress.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly on the trade legislation before us and on the importance of considering and voting on amendments that would improve it. I have submitted amendments of my own. I am co-leading a pair of amendments with Senator Baldwin, and there are a number of very important amendments that I support. We are talking about how we will consider trade agreements that would cover a major portion of the entire global economy. That is a very important subject, and I believe we need to fully debate this bill. I also believe we need to have votes on a number of amendments to make this bill better than it currently is. I believe that when trade is done right, it can benefit our workers, our communities, and our businesses. But I am concerned that the fast- track procedures set up by the trade promotion authority bill we are considering will not do enough to make sure we do trade right. So, at a minimum, I believe we should debate and have votes on a number of amendments that would considerably strengthen this bill. I have submitted two amendments of my own. One of my amendments would strengthen the negotiating objective on labor and environmental standards in the trade promotion authority bill. Right now, the bill effectively says that partner countries violate those standards only when they fail to enforce labor or environmental laws on a sustained and recurring basis. The notion that violations of standards need to be sustained and recurring to really count as violations is not found elsewhere in the bill and doesn't hold with respect to, for example, intellectual property, digital trade, or regulatory practices. My very simple amendment would take out ``sustained and recurring'' so that a labor violation is a labor violation. My other amendment is my Community College to Career Fund Act, which is designed to address the skills gap where there are jobs open in our country because there are not workers with the right skills to fill them. Just like Senator Stabenow's amendment on renewing the community college portion of trade adjustment assistance, or TAA, of which I am a cosponsor, my amendment will bolster workforce development and training. The community college portion of TAA has been successful in helping to retrain workers and communities that have been harmed by trade, and that is a good thing. My amendment builds on this by helping community colleges partner with business sectors in order to improve our ability to get people into jobs in manufacturing that are high-skilled jobs or in IT or in health care by providing them the skills they need. This will make all of our communities more resilient and economically successful. I am also proud to co-lead two amendments with Senator Baldwin of Wisconsin on our trade remedy laws. One would prevent trade negotiations from weakening those laws, and the other would strengthen the language in the TPA bill on trade remedy laws--the laws that enforce our trade policies and protect our domestic industries from dumped and subsidized imports from other countries. In Minnesota, I have seen firsthand the damage that happens when we don't have and, just as importantly, can't enforce strong trade protections. In the last few months alone, we have seen what happens when other countries unfairly dump their goods here. In this case, it was steel products. Nearly 1,000 Minnesotans are losing their jobs after a flood of dumped steel imports. Our provisions stand up for American manufacturers by putting in place and enforcing fair trade practices. In addition to these amendments, there are many other important amendments my colleagues have offered on currency manipulation, investor-state dispute settlement, ``Buy American,'' and a number of other issues. I believe that these issues are worth debating and that we should be voting on amendments on the important subjects which I have mentioned as well as on other important subjects. In my view, this bill is in need of substantial improvement, and we should not cut off the process of trying to make those improvements. We need to be voting on amendments, and we need to be working to improve this bill. I thank the Presiding Officer. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, today marks the 40th anniversary of the beginning of the forced exit of many members of the Hmong community from Laos following the U.S. withdrawal of troops from Vietnam. Tens of thousands of the Hmong came to my State of Minnesota, and today in Minnesota, we are honoring this anniversary with Hmong American Day. I am proud to join my State in recognizing the remarkable service of those who fought on our behalf, and in celebrating the contributions of Hmong Americans to our shared community over the last 40 years. The way I like to explain to people why there are so many Hmong Americans in Minnesota is by telling them that there are many fewer American names on the Vietnam War Memorial because of what the Hmong did for us during the ``secret war.'' Many people in America still do not realize that. But as the permanent memorial at Arlington says about the Hmong fighters and their American advisors: ``Their patriotic valor and loyalty in the defense of liberty and democracy will never be forgotten.'' In Minnesota, we recognize the remarkable service the Hmong fighters performed for our country, and we will never forget. The Senate resolution I am proud to join Senator Hirono and many of our colleagues in introducing in recognition of May as Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month states, ``the actions of the Hmong in Laos in support of the United States during the Vietnam War saves the lives of countless people of the United States.'' The Hmong fought on our behalf and saved American lives. But as the new communist regime took control in Laos, the Hmong were forced to begin their journey as refugees. For many, this journey would eventually end in Minnesota. Today, the vibrant Hmong American community in the Twin Cities--the largest urban Hmong community in the country--and throughout Minnesota is tens of thousands strong and is woven into the fabric of our society. You can see their tremendous contribution to American life every day in the many small businesses started by Hmong Americans on University Avenue, or at Hmong Village. You can see it in all the ways that Hmong Americans have brought their culture to the United States and helped to shape the culture of today's Minnesota. I also remain incredibly proud that Minnesota can boast that we had the Nation's very first Hmong American State legislator with my good friend Mee Moua, who has become a national leader on Asian American issues. I am glad others have followed in her wake. Representing the Hmong American community in the Senate is an important part of my job. That is why I am a cosponsor of a bill being reintroduced by Senator Murkowski of Alaska along with my fellow Minnesota Senator, Senator Klobuchar, to make sure that Hmong fighters in the ``secret war'' can be honored with burial in our national cemeteries. The Hmong Americans who fought for us deserve nothing less. It is also why I traveled to Laos several years ago to engage the Lao Government directly on protecting the Hmong people, including refugees who had been forcibly repatriated to Laos from Thailand. And it is why I fight for the Hmong Americans of Minnesota every day in the Senate. Hmong Americans want the same things that all Americans want--good-paying jobs, a bright future for their children, excellent health care. It is my job to help make sure those things are within everyone's reach. The Hmong American community has come through so much adversity as they left Laos and as they resettled in America, and they faced that adversity with resilience and courage. They serve as an inspiration to us all. We are so proud that the Hmong American community is part of the Minnesota--and the American--community. I am very pleased to join Minnesota in celebrating Hmong American Day--to celebrate the community's achievements and to commemorate the sacrifices of their loved ones in support of American troops so many years ago. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, today marks the 40th anniversary of the beginning of the forced exit of many members of the Hmong community from Laos following the U.S. withdrawal of troops from Vietnam. Tens of thousands of the Hmong came to my State of Minnesota, and today in Minnesota, we are honoring this anniversary with Hmong American Day. I am proud to join my State in recognizing the remarkable service of those who fought on our behalf, and in celebrating the contributions of Hmong Americans to our shared community over the last 40 years. The way I like to explain to people why there are so many Hmong Americans in Minnesota is by telling them that there are many fewer American names on the Vietnam War Memorial because of what the Hmong did for us during the ``secret war.'' Many people in America still do not realize that. But as the permanent memorial at Arlington says about the Hmong fighters and their American advisors: ``Their patriotic valor and loyalty in the defense of liberty and democracy will never be forgotten.'' In Minnesota, we recognize the remarkable service the Hmong fighters performed for our country, and we will never forget. The Senate resolution I am proud to join Senator Hirono and many of our colleagues in introducing in recognition of May as Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month states, ``the actions of the Hmong in Laos in support of the United States during the Vietnam War saves the lives of countless people of the United States.'' The Hmong fought on our behalf and saved American lives. But as the new communist regime took control in Laos, the Hmong were forced to begin their journey as refugees. For many, this journey would eventually end in Minnesota. Today, the vibrant Hmong American community in the Twin Cities--the largest urban Hmong community in the country--and throughout Minnesota is tens of thousands strong and is woven into the fabric of our society. You can see their tremendous contribution to American life every day in the many small businesses started by Hmong Americans on University Avenue, or at Hmong Village. You can see it in all the ways that Hmong Americans have brought their culture to the United States and helped to shape the culture of today's Minnesota. I also remain incredibly proud that Minnesota can boast that we had the Nation's very first Hmong American State legislator with my good friend Mee Moua, who has become a national leader on Asian American issues. I am glad others have followed in her wake. Representing the Hmong American community in the Senate is an important part of my job. That is why I am a cosponsor of a bill being reintroduced by Senator Murkowski of Alaska along with my fellow Minnesota Senator, Senator Klobuchar, to make sure that Hmong fighters in the ``secret war'' can be honored with burial in our national cemeteries. The Hmong Americans who fought for us deserve nothing less. It is also why I traveled to Laos several years ago to engage the Lao Government directly on protecting the Hmong people, including refugees who had been forcibly repatriated to Laos from Thailand. And it is why I fight for the Hmong Americans of Minnesota every day in the Senate. Hmong Americans want the same things that all Americans want--good-paying jobs, a bright future for their children, excellent health care. It is my job to help make sure those things are within everyone's reach. The Hmong American community has come through so much adversity as they left Laos and as they resettled in America, and they faced that adversity with resilience and courage. They serve as an inspiration to us all. We are so proud that the Hmong American community is part of the Minnesota--and the American--community. I am very pleased to join Minnesota in celebrating Hmong American Day--to celebrate the community's achievements and to commemorate the sacrifices of their loved ones in support of American troops so many years ago. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FRANKEN

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

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I yield the floor to the good Senator from Texas.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the need for a safer and healthier workplace and to urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Murray in supporting the Protecting America's Workers Act, which I am proud to introduce today. Today, April 28, is Workers' Memorial Day--a day for our Nation to remember and focus on those workers who have died or been injured on the job. Today is also a day to acknowledge the significant suffering experienced by families and communities when workers die or are injured and to recommit ourselves to maintaining safe and healthy workplaces for all of our workers. April 28 is also the anniversary of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, the OSH Act, which created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. When the bill was passed on a bipartisan basis and signed into law by President Nixon 45 years ago, 14,000 workers were dying on the job each year. Now the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that there were 4,405 worker fatalities in 2013. That is a huge improvement, and it would not have happened without the OSH Act. But it also means that far too many workers are still getting hurt and dying on the job. Our workforce and workplaces have changed significantly in 45 years, but our laws have not kept pace. We have made no real updates to our workplace safety laws even though thousands of workers die every year on the job, many in large industrial disasters that could be prevented. Unfortunately, too often, we are told that we cannot afford to strengthen our workplace safety laws. But I believe our country cannot afford the economic and emotional costs incurred by middle-class families when workers lose their lives or their livelihoods on the job. And it is not just those families; law-abiding businesses that invest in safe workplaces cannot afford to subsidize the corporations that cut corners on workplace safety and then leave the American public to pick up the tab. Let me remind you of a few of the tragedies that have happened in just the past decade that show the cost to our country. On March 23, 2005, fire and an explosion at BP's Texas City Refinery killed 15 workers and injured more than 170 others. On February 7, 2008, 13 people were killed and 42 people were injured in a dust explosion at a sugar refinery in Port Wentworth, GA. On April 17, 2014, 15 people were killed--13 of them volunteer first responders--and another 200 people were injured after a fertilizer company in West Texas exploded. The explosion leveled roughly 80 homes and a middle school. Mr. President, 133 residents of a nearby nursing home were trapped in the ruins. And just last week, we recognized the 5-year anniversary of the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. That accident killed 11 workers and is considered the largest accidental marine oilspill in the history of the petroleum industry, costing millions to the local economy and causing unprecedented damage to the environment. All of the reports following these accidents cited weak compliance and gaps in our safety laws. They all point to the fact that our workplace safety laws are too weak. They are so weak that they cannot ensure the safety of American workers, and they do not level the playing field for law-abiding businesses that make sure their workers are safe. These are not isolated incidents. Since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began collecting data on worker fatalities on the job in 1992, over 124,000 workers have died on the job. To put that in perspective, on average, in the United States, about six times as many people die on the job each year as died in airplane crashes last year worldwide. The fact is that many of these accidents could have been prevented. Many of these workers could still be with their families today. But, unfortunately, even after the reports outlining the details of these accidents and recommending commonsense updates to our laws to protect workers from these types of incidents, there have been no significant updates made to the Occupational Safety and Health Act. We all rely on the sacrifice of American workers who are employed in difficult and often dangerous industries. We all depend on construction, manufacturing, natural gas production, and agriculture to help build and heat our homes and put food on the table. The Americans who work in those fields should not have to choose between their health and safety and providing for their families. We can do something about that. That is why today I am proud to reintroduce the Protecting America's Workers Act with Senator Patty Murray, who has long been a champion of workers' rights. After 45 years, this legislation will modernize the Occupational Safety and Health Act for the 21st century. This legislation will expand the number of workers in safe workplaces and make it harder to violate workplace safety laws. It will also protect whistleblowers who bravely speak out about unsafe work conditions for themselves, their coworkers, and their families. This legislation protects the public's right to know about safety violations and about OSHA investigations. It will also help us track and respond to workplace safety issues by requiring tracking of worker injuries. Nothing can bring back the workers lost in Texas City; Port Wentworth, GA; West Texas; the Deepwater Horizon disaster; or the many tens of thousands of other workers who have lost their lives on the job. But we owe it to those who have died and to their surviving families to learn from those accidents and to try to stop them from happening so that other families do not have to suffer the same loss. Good jobs are safe jobs, and I believe this bill will help us create safer workplaces. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Murray in supporting the Protecting America's Workers Act.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the need for a safer and healthier workplace and to urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Murray in supporting the Protecting America's Workers Act, which I am proud to introduce today. Today, April 28, is Workers' Memorial Day--a day for our Nation to remember and focus on those workers who have died or been injured on the job. Today is also a day to acknowledge the significant suffering experienced by families and communities when workers die or are injured and to recommit ourselves to maintaining safe and healthy workplaces for all of our workers. April 28 is also the anniversary of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, the OSH Act, which created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. When the bill was passed on a bipartisan basis and signed into law by President Nixon 45 years ago, 14,000 workers were dying on the job each year. Now the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that there were 4,405 worker fatalities in 2013. That is a huge improvement, and it would not have happened without the OSH Act. But it also means that far too many workers are still getting hurt and dying on the job. Our workforce and workplaces have changed significantly in 45 years, but our laws have not kept pace. We have made no real updates to our workplace safety laws even though thousands of workers die every year on the job, many in large industrial disasters that could be prevented. Unfortunately, too often, we are told that we cannot afford to strengthen our workplace safety laws. But I believe our country cannot afford the economic and emotional costs incurred by middle-class families when workers lose their lives or their livelihoods on the job. And it is not just those families; law-abiding businesses that invest in safe workplaces cannot afford to subsidize the corporations that cut corners on workplace safety and then leave the American public to pick up the tab. Let me remind you of a few of the tragedies that have happened in just the past decade that show the cost to our country. On March 23, 2005, fire and an explosion at BP's Texas City Refinery killed 15 workers and injured more than 170 others. On February 7, 2008, 13 people were killed and 42 people were injured in a dust explosion at a sugar refinery in Port Wentworth, GA. On April 17, 2014, 15 people were killed--13 of them volunteer first responders--and another 200 people were injured after a fertilizer company in West Texas exploded. The explosion leveled roughly 80 homes and a middle school. Mr. President, 133 residents of a nearby nursing home were trapped in the ruins. And just last week, we recognized the 5-year anniversary of the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. That accident killed 11 workers and is considered the largest accidental marine oilspill in the history of the petroleum industry, costing millions to the local economy and causing unprecedented damage to the environment. All of the reports following these accidents cited weak compliance and gaps in our safety laws. They all point to the fact that our workplace safety laws are too weak. They are so weak that they cannot ensure the safety of American workers, and they do not level the playing field for law-abiding businesses that make sure their workers are safe. These are not isolated incidents. Since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began collecting data on worker fatalities on the job in 1992, over 124,000 workers have died on the job. To put that in perspective, on average, in the United States, about six times as many people die on the job each year as died in airplane crashes last year worldwide. The fact is that many of these accidents could have been prevented. Many of these workers could still be with their families today. But, unfortunately, even after the reports outlining the details of these accidents and recommending commonsense updates to our laws to protect workers from these types of incidents, there have been no significant updates made to the Occupational Safety and Health Act. We all rely on the sacrifice of American workers who are employed in difficult and often dangerous industries. We all depend on construction, manufacturing, natural gas production, and agriculture to help build and heat our homes and put food on the table. The Americans who work in those fields should not have to choose between their health and safety and providing for their families. We can do something about that. That is why today I am proud to reintroduce the Protecting America's Workers Act with Senator Patty Murray, who has long been a champion of workers' rights. After 45 years, this legislation will modernize the Occupational Safety and Health Act for the 21st century. This legislation will expand the number of workers in safe workplaces and make it harder to violate workplace safety laws. It will also protect whistleblowers who bravely speak out about unsafe work conditions for themselves, their coworkers, and their families. This legislation protects the public's right to know about safety violations and about OSHA investigations. It will also help us track and respond to workplace safety issues by requiring tracking of worker injuries. Nothing can bring back the workers lost in Texas City; Port Wentworth, GA; West Texas; the Deepwater Horizon disaster; or the many tens of thousands of other workers who have lost their lives on the job. But we owe it to those who have died and to their surviving families to learn from those accidents and to try to stop them from happening so that other families do not have to suffer the same loss. Good jobs are safe jobs, and I believe this bill will help us create safer workplaces. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Murray in supporting the Protecting America's Workers Act.

Mr. FRANKEN

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

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. FRANKEN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Comprehensive Justice and Mental Health Act, a bill I am introducing today with a number of my Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle and with Representative Doug Collins, who is introducing this legislation in the House. This bipartisan, bicameral bill will improve outcomes for people with mental illness when they interact with the criminal justice system. The Judiciary Committee unanimously approved this bill by voice vote in the last Congress, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the committee to move this legislation forward to consideration by the full Senate. The Comprehensive Justice and Mental Health Act is meant to address a very serious problem: The United States has 5 percent of the world's population but has 25 percent of the world's prison population--in large part because we have effectively criminalized mental illness. People with mental health conditions disproportionately are arrested and incarcerated, but instead of providing people with adequate access to mental health treatment, we let them fall through the cracks and languish in prison. As my home county--Hennepin County--Sheriff Rich Stanek put it, ``Local jails are the largest mental health facilities in the state of Minnesota,'' and this holds true across our Nation. Let's be clear. Using our criminal justice system as a substitute for a fully functioning mental health system doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense for law enforcement officers who often put their lives at risk when they are called upon to intervene in a mental health crisis. It doesn't make sense for courts which are inundated with cases involving people with mental illness. It doesn't make sense for people who have mental health conditions who often would benefit from treatment and intensive supervision than from traditional incarceration. It certainly doesn't make sense for taxpayers who foot the bill for high incarceration costs and overcrowded correction facilities and who must pay again when these untreated mentally ill prisoners are released back into society often in much worse shape than when they were locked up. We can improve access to mental health services for people who come into contact with the criminal justice system, and we can give law enforcement officers the tools they need to identify and respond to mental health issues in the communities and the situations they confront. In 2004, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act--or MIOTCRA-- which supports innovative programs that bring together mental health and criminal justice agencies to address the unique needs of people with mental health conditions. Former Ohio Republican Senator Mike DeWine, who now serves as that State's Attorney General, was the original sponsor of MIOTCRA. The Comprehensive Justice and Mental Health Act reauthorizes and improves MIOTCRA. Let me talk a little bit about how the programs supported by this legislation protect law enforcement officers and save lives. I will give one example. In 2013, I visited the police station in Columbia Heights, MN, a suburb of the Twin Cities. I talked with some of the officers who had been given crisis intervention training for law enforcement officers to recognize when they are confronted or are entering a situation that involves someone who has a mental illness. The sheriff wasn't there that day, but the county attorney who was there on behalf of the sheriff said that the day after the sheriff had his training, he did not kill a guy he would otherwise have killed because he recognized what was going on. That was pretty dramatic. So I turned to the other officers there who had also had this crisis intervention training and said to a policewoman: Can you give me a more garden-variety example? She said: OK. About 3 months ago, I was on the street and I heard a woman screaming. I thought it was some domestic violence thing or something. I went to see what was going on, and she went over to a railing that if she had let go, she would have dropped to a playground below. She might not have killed herself, but she would have gotten very badly hurt. From my training, I realized I was in a situation with someone who was mentally ill, and I used my training to talk her back up. I spoke to the woman. She said she had been sexually abused as a child; that the perpetrator had left town and had left her life, but recently that man had come back. She said: I think I know where I can get help for you. And she got her access to some treatment. She said: A couple months later, I was working a street fair when this same woman came up to me, very calm, and said: You saved my life. I said: OK. This is your garden-variety story? She said: Yes, I use this training all the time. I will holster my gun maybe once in my career, but I use this all the time. Now, the grants currently available that would be reauthorized through the Comprehensive Justice and Mental Health Act--which fund programs such as local crisis intervention training--are the only ones offered by the Justice Department that address mental health issues in the criminal justice system. So passing this legislation is critically important, and the bill would improve and expand upon the law. Here are some of the important things the bill does: It continues support for mental health courts and crisis intervention teams, both of which save lives and money. It includes new grant accountability measures and emphasizes the use of evidence-based practices that have been proven effective through empirical evidence. Our Presiding Officer is a physician, therefore a scientist, and therefore relies on empirical evidence. It authorizes investments in veterans treatment courts, which serve arrested veterans who have been arrested because they suffer from PTSD, substance addiction, which may be used to medicate their mental health or behavioral and other mental health conditions, other sometimes invisible wounds. It supports the development of programs, such as crisis intervention training, to train local, State, and Federal law enforcement officers how to recognize and respond appropriately to mental health crises. One of the new things the bill does is to support State and local efforts to identify people with mental health conditions at each point in the criminal justice system in order to appropriately direct them to mental health services. Our bill also increases the focus on corrections-based programs. I went to a prison in St. Cloud, MN, where they do intake in our State system. They said this crisis intervention training is incredibly important to them. They said: Do you watch TV on the weekends where they show prisoners, show the prison system, where you put on all the gear because some prisoner has gotten out of control and you have to go into the cell and tackle them? That could be avoided very often by understanding what is going on here. There is a lot of wear and tear when they have to go in like that. It is better to recognize what is going on and know how to deal with it. The bill also increases the focus on things such as transitional services that reduce recidivism rates and screening practices that identify inmates with mental health conditions. Finally, the bill gives local officials greater control over program participation eligibility. This again is for a program that already exists. The current system is broken. It doesn't serve the interests of people with mental illness, and it doesn't protect the safety of law enforcement personnel. As one Minnesota judge wrote: While [inmates with mental illness] are sitting in jail, they often recede further into the depths of their illness. They present a danger to themselves; they present a danger to fellow inmates; and they present a danger to the . . . men and women who run the jails. We have an obligation to ensure that people with mental illness receive the treatment and supervision they need and that the officers who put their lives on the line when they are called on to intervene in mental health crises are trained to respond in a way that protects their safety and that of their fellow officers and of the person with mental illness. This bill helps us better meet that obligation. I am very pleased to introduce this bill with a bipartisan group of lawmakers who are committed to improving the ways in which people with mental health conditions interact with the criminal justice system--in particular, my fellow lead sponsor, Senator John Cornyn, and Representative Doug Collins, who is leading this effort in the House. This legislation has always enjoyed bipartisan support. In 2004, it was introduced by Michael DeWine, Republican from Ohio, in the Senate. In the last Congress, the predecessor of this bill had 39 Senate cosponsors, including 25 Democrats and 14 Republicans. The House companion bill had 55 cosponsors, including 24 Democrats and 31 Republicans. As you can see, this has always been a bipartisan effort, and I am pleased to continue that tradition in this Congress. I would like to thank Senators Cornyn, Ayotte, Blunt, and Portman, as well as Senators Leahy, Durbin, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Coons, Blumenthal, Boxer, Brown, Warren, and Booker, for serving as original cosponsors of the Comprehensive Justice and Mental Health Act. I look forward to adding more cosponsors in the days to come. I would also like to recognize the many law enforcement, civil rights veterans, and mental health advocacy organizations--most notably the Council of State Governments--for standing in strong support of this legislation or its predecessor bill and advocating tirelessly for its enactment. More than 250 organizations endorsed this legislation in the previous Congress, including the American Legion, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Major County Sheriffs' Association, the National Sheriffs' Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Association of Counties, and the Wounded Warrior Project, just to name a few. I look forward to working together with advocates and with my colleagues to get this bill enacted into law so that we can ease the burden of mental health problems on our criminal justice system and help a lot of people.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Comprehensive Justice and Mental Health Act, a bill I am introducing today with a number of my Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle and with Representative Doug Collins, who is introducing this legislation in the House. This bipartisan, bicameral bill will improve outcomes for people with mental illness when they interact with the criminal justice system. The Judiciary Committee unanimously approved this bill by voice vote in the last Congress, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the committee to move this legislation forward to consideration by the full Senate. The Comprehensive Justice and Mental Health Act is meant to address a very serious problem: The United States has 5 percent of the world's population but has 25 percent of the world's prison population--in large part because we have effectively criminalized mental illness. People with mental health conditions disproportionately are arrested and incarcerated, but instead of providing people with adequate access to mental health treatment, we let them fall through the cracks and languish in prison. As my home county--Hennepin County--Sheriff Rich Stanek put it, ``Local jails are the largest mental health facilities in the state of Minnesota,'' and this holds true across our Nation. Let's be clear. Using our criminal justice system as a substitute for a fully functioning mental health system doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense for law enforcement officers who often put their lives at risk when they are called upon to intervene in a mental health crisis. It doesn't make sense for courts which are inundated with cases involving people with mental illness. It doesn't make sense for people who have mental health conditions who often would benefit from treatment and intensive supervision than from traditional incarceration. It certainly doesn't make sense for taxpayers who foot the bill for high incarceration costs and overcrowded correction facilities and who must pay again when these untreated mentally ill prisoners are released back into society often in much worse shape than when they were locked up. We can improve access to mental health services for people who come into contact with the criminal justice system, and we can give law enforcement officers the tools they need to identify and respond to mental health issues in the communities and the situations they confront. In 2004, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act--or MIOTCRA-- which supports innovative programs that bring together mental health and criminal justice agencies to address the unique needs of people with mental health conditions. Former Ohio Republican Senator Mike DeWine, who now serves as that State's Attorney General, was the original sponsor of MIOTCRA. The Comprehensive Justice and Mental Health Act reauthorizes and improves MIOTCRA. Let me talk a little bit about how the programs supported by this legislation protect law enforcement officers and save lives. I will give one example. In 2013, I visited the police station in Columbia Heights, MN, a suburb of the Twin Cities. I talked with some of the officers who had been given crisis intervention training for law enforcement officers to recognize when they are confronted or are entering a situation that involves someone who has a mental illness. The sheriff wasn't there that day, but the county attorney who was there on behalf of the sheriff said that the day after the sheriff had his training, he did not kill a guy he would otherwise have killed because he recognized what was going on. That was pretty dramatic. So I turned to the other officers there who had also had this crisis intervention training and said to a policewoman: Can you give me a more garden-variety example? She said: OK. About 3 months ago, I was on the street and I heard a woman screaming. I thought it was some domestic violence thing or something. I went to see what was going on, and she went over to a railing that if she had let go, she would have dropped to a playground below. She might not have killed herself, but she would have gotten very badly hurt. From my training, I realized I was in a situation with someone who was mentally ill, and I used my training to talk her back up. I spoke to the woman. She said she had been sexually abused as a child; that the perpetrator had left town and had left her life, but recently that man had come back. She said: I think I know where I can get help for you. And she got her access to some treatment. She said: A couple months later, I was working a street fair when this same woman came up to me, very calm, and said: You saved my life. I said: OK. This is your garden-variety story? She said: Yes, I use this training all the time. I will holster my gun maybe once in my career, but I use this all the time. Now, the grants currently available that would be reauthorized through the Comprehensive Justice and Mental Health Act--which fund programs such as local crisis intervention training--are the only ones offered by the Justice Department that address mental health issues in the criminal justice system. So passing this legislation is critically important, and the bill would improve and expand upon the law. Here are some of the important things the bill does: It continues support for mental health courts and crisis intervention teams, both of which save lives and money. It includes new grant accountability measures and emphasizes the use of evidence-based practices that have been proven effective through empirical evidence. Our Presiding Officer is a physician, therefore a scientist, and therefore relies on empirical evidence. It authorizes investments in veterans treatment courts, which serve arrested veterans who have been arrested because they suffer from PTSD, substance addiction, which may be used to medicate their mental health or behavioral and other mental health conditions, other sometimes invisible wounds. It supports the development of programs, such as crisis intervention training, to train local, State, and Federal law enforcement officers how to recognize and respond appropriately to mental health crises. One of the new things the bill does is to support State and local efforts to identify people with mental health conditions at each point in the criminal justice system in order to appropriately direct them to mental health services. Our bill also increases the focus on corrections-based programs. I went to a prison in St. Cloud, MN, where they do intake in our State system. They said this crisis intervention training is incredibly important to them. They said: Do you watch TV on the weekends where they show prisoners, show the prison system, where you put on all the gear because some prisoner has gotten out of control and you have to go into the cell and tackle them? That could be avoided very often by understanding what is going on here. There is a lot of wear and tear when they have to go in like that. It is better to recognize what is going on and know how to deal with it. The bill also increases the focus on things such as transitional services that reduce recidivism rates and screening practices that identify inmates with mental health conditions. Finally, the bill gives local officials greater control over program participation eligibility. This again is for a program that already exists. The current system is broken. It doesn't serve the interests of people with mental illness, and it doesn't protect the safety of law enforcement personnel. As one Minnesota judge wrote: While [inmates with mental illness] are sitting in jail, they often recede further into the depths of their illness. They present a danger to themselves; they present a danger to fellow inmates; and they present a danger to the . . . men and women who run the jails. We have an obligation to ensure that people with mental illness receive the treatment and supervision they need and that the officers who put their lives on the line when they are called on to intervene in mental health crises are trained to respond in a way that protects their safety and that of their fellow officers and of the person with mental illness. This bill helps us better meet that obligation. I am very pleased to introduce this bill with a bipartisan group of lawmakers who are committed to improving the ways in which people with mental health conditions interact with the criminal justice system--in particular, my fellow lead sponsor, Senator John Cornyn, and Representative Doug Collins, who is leading this effort in the House. This legislation has always enjoyed bipartisan support. In 2004, it was introduced by Michael DeWine, Republican from Ohio, in the Senate. In the last Congress, the predecessor of this bill had 39 Senate cosponsors, including 25 Democrats and 14 Republicans. The House companion bill had 55 cosponsors, including 24 Democrats and 31 Republicans. As you can see, this has always been a bipartisan effort, and I am pleased to continue that tradition in this Congress. I would like to thank Senators Cornyn, Ayotte, Blunt, and Portman, as well as Senators Leahy, Durbin, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Coons, Blumenthal, Boxer, Brown, Warren, and Booker, for serving as original cosponsors of the Comprehensive Justice and Mental Health Act. I look forward to adding more cosponsors in the days to come. I would also like to recognize the many law enforcement, civil rights veterans, and mental health advocacy organizations--most notably the Council of State Governments--for standing in strong support of this legislation or its predecessor bill and advocating tirelessly for its enactment. More than 250 organizations endorsed this legislation in the previous Congress, including the American Legion, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Major County Sheriffs' Association, the National Sheriffs' Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Association of Counties, and the Wounded Warrior Project, just to name a few. I look forward to working together with advocates and with my colleagues to get this bill enacted into law so that we can ease the burden of mental health problems on our criminal justice system and help a lot of people.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, we just voice-voted an amendment to let students use summer Pell grants, but the fact is this budget cuts Pell grants. In Minnesota alone, more than 160,000 students were able to go to college thanks in part to Pell grants, and the same holds for millions around the country. When my wife Franni and I were in college, a full Pell grant paid for about 80 percent of a public college education. Today it pays for less than 35 percent. Yet this budget would cut this program and make it harder for students to pay for college. My colleagues want to cut it further. We should not be doing that. That is why I offer this amendment to restore funding for Pell grants.

Mr. FRANKEN. I urge my colleagues to vote yes.

Mr. FRANKEN. I would say yes. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the Republican budget resolution. I would ask--there are time restraints here. I will go as far in my speech as I can and then ask the remainder be included in the Record.

Mr. FRANKEN. Please let me know--is that done without objection?

Mr. FRANKEN. Can the Presiding Officer tell me when 7 minutes have elapsed.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, the budget the Republicans in the Senate have presented us with imagines a future where we give even more tax breaks to millionaires and special interests, while pulling the rug out from under working families. Instead of addressing the major challenge facing our Nation today--that middle-class families continue to face an economy rigged against them and their efforts to attain a better future for themselves and their family--this budget is fundamentally misaligned with the values of working Americans. Over the last 30 years, we have seen Wall Street and giant corporations make record profits and middle-class families have been left behind. According to the Economic Policy Institute, over the last 30 years, wages for the top 1 percent rose almost 10 times as fast as those for the bottom 90 percent. Last year, Oxfam calculated that the 400 wealthiest individuals in our country have more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans. As a result, today the concentration of income at the very top has risen to levels last seen in the 1920s--a time of vast inequality that ended in economic disaster for our entire Nation. We have a responsibility to turn back this dangerous trend, and Minnesotans know how to do it. We have done it in Minnesota. We know how to grow our economy. We know that we grow it from the middle out, not the top down. Paul Wellstone had a saying: We all do better when we all do better. And we all do better when people in the middle have money to spend. A higher percentage of middle-class people are entrepreneurs. There is more social and economic mobility when there is a strong middle class. We all do better when we all do better. Even those at the top do better. We saw that during the Clinton administration when every quintile was helped. Minnesotans know that a middle-class budget would ensure health care access and fair workplaces for all Americans so that families can concentrate on doing the best job they can as workers, community members, parents, daughters, and sons instead of worrying about whether taking time off for a sick child will get them fired or whether a long- term illness will bankrupt their family. So we could and we should be crafting a budget that supports middle- class families and those aspiring to be in the middle class. Opening up economic opportunity, helping to lay the foundation for economic growth, and supporting innovation are key to a dynamic economy. We could have a budget that makes smart investments, finds sensible savings, and makes sure everyone is paying their fair share of taxes, but that is not the budget the Republicans have crafted. Instead of stability and opportunity for the middle-class Minnesotans, the Republican budget proposal would slash billions of dollars in investments that grow our economy. The Republican budget would do nothing to close the loopholes that disproportionately benefit large corporations and superwealthy individuals. Since 2010, we have seen more than $4 in spending cuts for every $1 in revenue. The new Republican budget would make that situation even worse. This budget would bring that to $10 in spending for every $1 in revenue, and these cuts are coming directly at the expense of programs that serve middle and lower income families. The budget would cut over $6 million in job-creating research in my State of Minnesota alone, where we are making crucial investments in areas such as renewable energy and health innovations. In fact, the Economic Policy Institute says the cuts in the Republican budget would result in over 45,000 jobs lost in Minnesota. It would also cut funds for workforce training to help Minnesotans compete for 21st-century jobs. Over 35,000 workers would lose access to training opportunities, according to the Department of Labor. Considering the skills gap that every Senator on this floor acknowledges to me exists in their States, that just makes no sense whatsoever. The Republicans would cut education in their budget. We are talking about Head Start Programs. The Republican budget would cut 620,000 children from Head Start. We would lose those slots over 10 years. In Minnesota, that means 883 fewer slots for preschoolers who would benefit from early childhood programs. I will tell you something about Head Start. This quality early childhood education program has a return on investments of $8 to $16 per child, and I will explain why. A child who has had a quality early childhood education is less likely to be in special education, less likely to be left back a grade, and has better health care outcomes. The girls are less likely to get pregnant in adolescence. They graduate from high school at a higher rate. They are more likely to go to college, graduate from college, have better jobs, pay more taxes, and they are much less likely to go to prison. That is why you have an $8 to $16 return for each kid who has a quality early childhood education. This is wrong. It is also wrong because kids are only 3 years old once, and they are beautiful children. They deserve this, and their parents deserve this. This is wrongheaded. The Republican budget not only hits early childhood education, it hits Pell grants. In Minnesota, 160,000 students last year were able to go to college because of the Pell Grant Program. When my wife Franni and I went to college, a full Pell grant paid for almost 80 percent of a full public college education. Today, it pays for less than 35 percent. Further cuts will make it even harder for students to pay for college. Yet my colleagues want to cut Pell grants further. We should not be doing that, and that is why I am offering an amendment to restore funding for Pell Grants in this budget. And that is also why I have worked with Senator Warren on the amendment to make higher education more affordable by allowing Americans to refinance student debt. Student debt is now over $1.3 trillion and this is holding back our economy because recent grads are less likely to buy a home, start a new business, or purchase other big- ticket items like a car because they are tied to this debt. Unfortunately, our amendment failed, but I am going to keep working with Senator Warren on this commonsense issue. One of the other keys to prosperity is infrastructure, and unfortunately, the Republican budget does nothing to address our Nation's crumbling roads, bridges, dams, levees, water systems, waste water plants, airports, and rail systems. And yet investing in infrastructure is one of the best ways to help businesses and create millions of middle-class jobs in the short and long-term. As I said, the Republican budget also seeks to repeal the Affordable Care Act, even though we know that 16.5 million Americans now have health coverage because of the Affordable Care Act. In Minnesota, since the Affordable Care Act fully went into effect, the uninsured rate has dropped by over 40 percent, and now 95 percent of Minnesotans have health insurance. But under the Republican budget, we would go back to the days when someone with a pre-existing condition could not get health insurance. We would go back to the days when half the bankruptcies in this country were linked to someone getting sick, and back to the days when women were charged more than men for health insurance. That is not what Americans want. Americans don't want to go back to the days of high-cost, low value health care. Americans don't want a budget that will undercut the very sources of prosperity for the middle class. We can afford to make the investments we need for the future, and do it in a fiscally responsible way. Part of that is fixing our broken Tax Code. Our economy loses hundreds of billions of dollars from a wasteful, inefficient, and, frankly, unfair Tax Code riddled with loopholes. If we reform our Tax Code to make it fairer and more efficient--by doing things like closing the loophole on what is called carried interest--we can afford to invest in education, infrastructure, and innovation to help American workers compete in the global economy. Instead, the Republican budget would allow U.S. companies to continue to shift billions in profits to tax havens and middle-class jobs overseas. It allows millionaires and billionaires to pay lower rates on their income than many middle-class taxpayers. On top of this, the Republican budget leaves the deck stacked in favor of the rights of big corporations and Wall Street ahead of American workers. Americans want a fair chance. They want equal pay for equal work. They want us to preserve the promise of Social Security for their generation and generations to come. And they want everyone who works full time to be able to keep their family out of poverty. These are the things that could be in a budget that supports the middle class. Finally, let me note that the Republican budget is filled with fiscally irresponsible budget gimmicks. Not only is it very vague about a lot of the cuts it would make, the budget also uses an off the books account, the Overseas Contingency Operations Fund, which falls outside of the budget caps, to significantly increase defense spending without paying for it. And even as the Republican budget repeals the Affordable Care Act, it doesn't say how it will replace the savings and revenue from the bill. This isn't even smoke and mirrors, it is right out there for us to see. This budget also repeals a rule the Senate has had in place since 2007 to prohibit reconciliation legislation that would increase the deficit. Again, the Republican's budget plan for America is fundamentally out of step with the values of working Americans. It's the same tired trickle-down plan we have seen fail time and time again. It's a plan that says we can reduce our deficit and spend billions more on defense without raising a nickel of new revenue. It's a plan that says we can grow our economy by cutting health care for seniors and children and the poorest in our society. It's a plan that says that cutting pre- school and college aid is a better investment than closing tax loopholes that encourage giant, multinational corporations to use elaborate accounting tricks and ship jobs overseas. This plan just doesn't make sense.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I will end by saying that this is not even smoke and mirrors; this is riddled with gimmicks and is fundamentally unfair to working Americans. It is the same trickle-down economics that we have seen fail time and time again. I urge my colleagues to reject this budget and embrace a real plan that supports middle-class families and those aspiring to the middle class. We need a budget that builds on the progress we made since the great recession and takes us into a better future for all Americans. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. FRANKEN

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

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose this resolution which would overturn modest but vitally important updates to the process that enables workers to exercise their rights to join a labor union. Today's attack on the NLRB's rule to modernize its election process is misplaced and misguided. Today middle-class families are struggling with wages that aren't keeping up with expenses, while large corporations make record profits, and those at the top are doing better and better. But our economy doesn't grow from the top down; it grows from the middle out. Our economy is strongest when we have a thriving middle class with a strong voice in the workplace. That is why we should be talking about how to restore basic workplace fairness to middle-class Americans and to those aspiring to be in the middle class. To me, that means if you work full time, you shouldn't have to live in poverty. It means making sure that moms and dads don't have to choose between keeping their jobs and taking a few hours to take their sick child to the doctor. Those are the things we should be focusing on. In fact, if we want to accomplish those things, we need to strengthen the voices of regular Americans in the workplace. The NLRB representation rule takes a small but important step toward strengthening those voices. That is why the resolution before us today is not only misplaced, it is also misguided. This resolution would do the opposite of empowering workers. The purpose of this resolution is to block rules that will modernize a broken election process. Because that election process is broken, it is preventing workers from exercising a basic right they are supposed to have in the workplace--the right to have a seat at the bargaining table. Too often, loopholes are being exploited to prevent workers from having the freedom to decide whether they want to form a union. Today, 35 percent of the time that workers file a petition for a union election, they never even get to have an election. The 10 percent of litigated cases that this rule targets for reform take over 6 months on average to get to an election, and some elections can be delayed for years. That is why workers need this rule to ensure a fair, effective process that is free of excessive delays. Some of the updates in the rule simply standardize best practices that are already used in some parts of the country. For example, in some regions of the country hearings are regularly scheduled to be held 7 days after the petition is filed and petitions are accepted by fax. Also, under the representation rule workers and companies can file documents electronically, bringing the process up to date with 21st- century technologies. It also increases transparency in the election process. Everyone involved--from workers petitioning for an election, to companies, to the NLRB itself--has to provide information to the other parties earlier in the process and in more complete form. Nothing in this rule will change an employer's right to express its support for or opposition to a union. Nothing in the rule will change an employer's ability to communicate with workers from their very first day on the job. If the employer opposes collective bargaining in the workplace for better wages and working conditions, the company has the right to do that from the very beginning. Modernizing and streamlining the process by which workers exercise their rights to join a union should not be controversial. Under the National Labor Relations Act, our laws explicitly recognize the rights of employees to engage in collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing. That is the law. As a member of three unions myself, I have seen firsthand how important it is for workers to have a voice in their workplace. The evidence shows that being a member of a union can have a tremendous impact on the lives of real people and their families. Workers covered by a collective bargaining agreement are paid more on average than those not covered. Unionized workers are more likely to have health care, retirement benefits, and paid leave benefits than other workers. So, again, the changes made by the election rule are just commonsense updates that will support these important objectives. I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution so that these commonsense reforms will be able to ensure a fairer election process for everyone. I yield to the Senator from New York.