Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in executive session on Thursday, May 16, 2013, at 9:15 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to mark-up the nomination of Thomas E. Perez, to be Secretary of Labor. For further information regarding this meeting, please contact the Committee at (202) 224-5375.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in open session on Tuesday, May 14, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``The ADA and Entertainment Technologies: Improving Accessibility from the Movie Screen to Your Mobile Device.'' For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Alyssa Mowitz of the committee staff on (202) 228-3453.

Mr. HARKIN

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 I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my deep disappointment that once again Republican obstructionism and procedural tricks are preventing this body from carrying out its constitutional duty and responsibility, its obligation to consider important Presidential nominations. This time the target is Mr. Tom Perez, the President's extremely qualified nominee to be Secretary of Labor. The HELP Committee, which I chair, was scheduled to vote on his nomination at 4 o'clock this afternoon. Obviously, we are not doing that. An anonymous Republican has invoked an obscure procedural rule to prevent our committee from meeting at that scheduled time. This pointless obstructionism is extremely disturbing. I would like to point out that we had previously been scheduled to vote on his nomination in my committee 2 weeks ago. In an effort to bend over backwards and to be accommodating to our colleagues who requested more time to consider documents related to the nomination, I deferred it for 2 weeks as sort of senatorial courtesy. This time there is no allegation that they have had insufficient time for consideration, just delay for delay's sake on the nomination. Tom Perez has been before our committee since March. We have had our hearing, during which Mr. Perez fully answered all questions posed to him. I cut off no one. I allowed anyone to ask whatever questions they wanted. Mr. Perez has met with any interested Senator personally and answered over 200 written questions for the record. It is an understatement to say his nomination has been thoroughly vetted. This continuing delay is unconscionable and only hurts the American workers and businesses that rely on the Department of Labor each and every day. As our country continues to move down the road to economic recovery, the work of the Department of Labor is becoming even more vital to the lives of our working families. Whether it is making sure workers get paid the wages they deserve, helping returning veterans reenter the workforce, protecting our seniors' retirement nest eggs, ensuring that a new mother can care for her baby without losing her job, the Department of Labor helps families build the cornerstones of a middle- class life. Now more than ever we need strong leadership at the Department to help strengthen our fragile recovery and build a stronger and revitalized American middle class. That is why this nomination is so important. There has been a lot of public discussion about Mr. Perez but remarkably little of it has focused on what should be the central question before our committee today: Will Tom Perez be a good Secretary of Labor. The answer is unequivocally yes. Without question, he has the knowledge and experience needed to guide this critically important agency. Through his professional experiences, and especially his work as Secretary of the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, he has developed strong policy expertise about the many important issues for American workers and businesses that come before the Department of Labor every day. He spearheaded major initiatives on potentially controversial issues, such as unemployment insurance reform and worker misclassification, while finding common ground between workers and businesses to build sensible, commonsense solutions. He also clearly has the management skills to run a large Federal agency effectively. He was also an effective manager and a responsible steward of public resources, undertaking significant administrative and organizational reforms that made the Maryland DLLR more efficient and more effective. His outstanding work in Maryland has won him the support of the business community and worker advocates alike. To quote from the endorsement letter of the Maryland Chamber of Commerce: Mr. Perez proved himself to be a pragmatic public official who was willing to bring differing voices together. The Maryland Chamber had the opportunity to work with Mr. Perez on an array of issues of importance to employers in Maryland, from unemployment and workforce development to the housing and foreclosure crisis. Despite differences of opinion, Mr. Perez was always willing to allow all parties to be heard, and we found him to be fair and collaborative. I believe that our experiences with him here in Maryland bode well for the nation. That is a pretty strong endorsement by a chamber of commerce for a nominee whom the minority leader today on the floor characterized as a ``crusading ideologue . . . willing to do or say anything to achieve his ideological ends.'' That is how he was characterized by the Republican leader today, but the Maryland Chamber of Commerce didn't seem to think so. So that grossly unfair characterization by the Republican leader is manifestly inconsistent with the experiences of the Republican leaders and businesses that have actually worked with Tom Perez. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from businesses and Republican leaders demonstrating the strong bipartisan support for Mr. Perez's nomination. These people clearly disagree with the Republican leader's assessment of Mr. Perez's qualifications and character.

Mr. HARKIN. Indeed, I think Mr. Perez's character--his character--is exactly what qualifies him for this job--his character. Tom Perez has dedicated his life to making sure every American has a fair opportunity to pursue the American dream. At the Maryland Department of Labor, he revamped the State's adult education system so more people could successfully train for better jobs and brighter futures. As the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he is right now, he has been a voice for the most vulnerable, and he has reinvigorated the enforcement of some of our most critical civil rights laws. He has helped more Americans achieve the dream of home ownership through his unprecedented efforts to prevent residential lending discrimination. He has helped to ensure that people with disabilities have the choice to live in their own homes and communities rather than only in institutional settings and to make sure people with disabilities receive the support and services they need to make independent living possible. He has stepped up the Department's efforts to protect the employment rights of servicemembers so our men and women in uniform can return to their jobs and support their families after serving their country. I can tell you that Tom Perez is passionate about these issues. He is passionate about justice and about fairness, and I believe these are qualities that Tom Perez learned at the hand of his former employer here in the Senate, our former committee chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Ted Kennedy. But, as he explained in his confirmation hearing, he also learned from Senator Kennedy ``that idealism and pragmatism are not mutually exclusive.'' Mr. Perez knows how to bring people together to make progress on even controversial issues without burning bridges or making enemies. He knows how to hit the ground running and quickly and effectively become an agent of real change. That is exactly the kind of leadership we need at the Department of Labor. We need his vision, we need his passion, and we need, yes, his character at the helm of this important agency. Allow me to state very clearly that while I know there has been generated controversy--not real controversy but generated controversy-- surrounding Mr. Perez's nomination, there is absolutely nothing that calls into question his ability to fairly enforce the law as it is written. There is absolutely nothing that calls into question his professional integrity or his moral character or his ability to lead the Department of Labor. As I mentioned, Mr. Perez has been as open and aboveboard as he could possibly be throughout this entire confirmation process. He has met with any Member personally who requested a meeting. As I said, he appeared before our committee in a public hearing. He has answered more than 200 written questions. He has bent over backward to respond to any and all concerns raised about his work at the Department of Justice. This administration--President Obama--has also been extraordinarily accommodating to any Republican colleague, especially to their concerns about Mr. Perez's involvement in the global resolution of two cases involving the city of St. Paul, MN--Magner v. St. Paul and Newell v. St. Paul. The administration has produced thousands of documents concerning these two cases. They have arranged for the interview of government employees. They have facilitated almost unprecedented levels of disclosure to alleviate any concern about his involvement in these cases. As chairman of the committee, I have also tried to be as accommodating as possible, joining in requests for documents that I, quite frankly, thought were unnecessary but willing to acquire and postponing the executive session for 2 weeks to provide Members additional time for consideration. All this extensive process has revealed is that Mr. Perez acted at all times ethically and appropriately to advance the interests of the U.S. Government. For example, with respect to the Magner and Newell matters, Mr. Perez consulted with both outside ethics and professional responsibility experts at the Department of Justice, and Mr. Perez acted within their guidelines at all times. It is no surprise that outside ethics experts have confirmed that Mr. Perez acted appropriately in these matters. I would like to submit again for the Record letters and statements from several legal ethics experts and experts in the False Claims Act confirming that Mr. Perez's handling of the Magner and Newell cases was both ethical and appropriate. And I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these letters.

Mr. HARKIN. As Professor Stephen Gillers, who has taught legal ethics for more than 30 years at New York University School of Law, wrote in one of these letters, Mr. Perez's actions in these cases ``violate[d] no ethical rule that governs lawyers. He was acting in what he believed to be the best interests of his client, which is what lawyers are required to do.'' In short, Mr. Perez did his job at DOJ, and he did it well. When it comes down to it, I think the fact that he did his job well is probably the source of much of the generated controversy surrounding his nomination. Maybe some people just don't like Tom Perez precisely because he is passionate about enforcing our civil rights laws and has vigorously pursued such enforcement in his current position. I take great issue with the minority leader's suggestion today that Mr. Perez doesn't follow the law or believe that it applies to him. I would respectfully suggest that the Republican leader needs to check his facts. To the contrary, Tom Perez has had a remarkable career as a result of a determination to make the promise of our civil rights statutes a reality for everyday Americans. Maybe these are some of the same laws that some colleagues sometimes would like to forget are on the books, but these laws matter. Voting rights matter. Fair housing rights matter. The rights of people with disabilities matter. These laws are part of what makes our country great. I am incredibly proud of the work Mr. Perez has done at the Department of Justice to make those rights a reality after years of neglect. He should be applauded, not vilified, for the service he has provided to this country. Mr. President, it almost seems that when Mr. Perez's name came up, there was a controversy generated about these cases in St. Paul involving whistleblower types and that somehow he acted inappropriately and denied the government the ability to get back a couple hundred million dollars or so. That seemed to be a belief some of my colleagues on the other side had. So we looked into it. We went through all the documents, all the e-mails, and thousands of pages, with ethics lawyers both in the government and out. What we came up with was that Mr. Perez acted ethically and appropriately at all times. There is no ``there'' there. So the facts belie the belief, but it seems that the belief carries on and that somehow the belief trumps the facts. Well, if some of my colleagues want to believe the worst about Tom Perez, they can believe that, but they have no facts to back it up. It is an unfounded belief. Is that what is going to guide this body in approving nominations for this President or any President--that if I believe something and I can get maybe some of my colleagues to join in and believe it, that is enough? That is sufficient to vilify a nominee, to try to tear him down? What about the facts? Don't facts matter? Doesn't the record matter? Of course it does. And the facts, as proven time and time again, are that Mr. Perez acted ethically and appropriately at the Department of Justice at all times and especially in the two cases--Magner v. St. Paul and Newell v. St. Paul. That has been clearly brought forth, that he acted appropriately and ethically. So I say to my colleagues on the other side, believe what you want, but that belief, mistaken as it is, should not be used to tear down a good person, to vilify a good person, to cast this person in a light which is totally false. So, yes, Mr. President, there was an objection to our meeting today under this obscure rule of the Senate, but we have rescheduled the meeting for 1 week hence. So in 1 week we will meet again, and we will vote to report out the nomination of Tom Perez, and then we will come to the floor. Again, I hope that it won't be filibustered by my Republican colleagues but that we will be able to vote up or down on Mr. Perez based not upon what someone believes but what the facts are, what his record is, what his record has been both in local government, State government, and at the Department of Justice. When you look at that record, it is an exemplary record of unstinting public service in the best interests of the civil rights and equal rights of our country. That is why, with his background, his experience, and his dedication to fairness and justice, the fact that he has actually worked in the Senate on the HELP Committee--the committee that has jurisdiction over the Department of Labor--gives tremendous weight to his background and insight into how to be a truly great Secretary of Labor. So we will vote next week. I hope there are not other kinds of roadblocks--unfounded roadblocks--thrown into the path of his confirmation. We will do everything we can to make sure this good person takes his rightful place as our next Secretary of Labor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I was deeply disturbed several weeks ago to learn of the White House's plan to strip $332 million in critical funding from the Prevention and Public Health Fund and to redirect that money to educating the public about the new health insurance marketplaces and other aspects of implementing the Affordable Care Act. No one is more interested in ensuring the successful implementation of the health insurance exchanges than I am. I chair that committee. I was working with both Senator Kennedy and Senator Dodd in formulating these aspects of the Affordable Care Act. But it is ill-advised and shortsighted to raid the prevention fund, which is making absolutely critical investments in preventing disease, saving lives, and keeping women and their families healthy. Last year they took $5 billion from the prevention fund. I will get to that in a moment. So, again, in their raiding of this prevention fund, not only is it a case of misplaced priorities, it is frankly an outrageous attack on an investment fund that is saving lives by advancing wellness and prevention initiatives in communities all across America. A major purpose of the Affordable Care Act is to begin to transform our current sick care system into a genuine health care system, one that is focused on saving lives through a greater emphasis on wellness, prevention, and public health. I have been saying for 20 years or more that we do not have a health care system in America, we have a sick care system. When you think about it, if you get sick, you can get pretty good care in America. We have the best surgeons and best cancer clinics. If you are sick, there is probably no better place in the world to be than in America to get cured. But what we are lousy at is keeping you healthy in the first place and preventing illness, preventing diseases, preventing chronic conditions. Every expert acknowledges that we will never reduce health care costs or have a healthier and more productive society until we have a major focus on prevention. However, I have no choice but to conclude that when it comes to prevention and wellness, some people in this administration just do not get it. The prevention fund already has been a giant step forward for public health in our Nation. Typically, prevention and public health initiatives have in the past always been an afterthought. This means that important community-based interventions often go unsupported. The prevention fund, as part of the Affordable Care Act, is making it possible for us to make national investments in evidence-based programs that promote physical activity, improve nutrition, and reduce tobacco use. This is not the time to mention all of the many ways this fund is already making Americans healthier. I want to mention several representative investments that are happening right now. The prevention fund is already investing $226 million to reduce chronic diseases, including diabetes and heart disease. Heart disease disproportionately affects women. In fact, it is the No. 1 cause of death for women in this country. Some 42 million women in America are currently living with some form of heart disease. The World Health Organization estimates that a staggering 80 percent of heart disease, diabetes, and stroke could be prevented as a result of changes in smoking, nutrition, and physical activity alone. Moreover, this investment by the prevention fund is not only saving lives, it is also saving money. Right now, heart disease costs our Nation about $440 billion a year--$440 billion a year in health care costs from heart disease alone. Cigarette smoking kills an estimated 173,000 women a year. If current smoking rates persist, more than 6 million kids living in the United States today will ultimately die from smoking. This year the fund is supporting a second round of the highly successful media campaign called ``Tips From a Former Smoker.'' It is estimated that last year's campaign will save $70 million annually based on just the smokers who successfully quit in reaction to this 12- week ad campaign. These ads are extremely powerful and effective. Within 2 days of the first ad appearing last year, the number of calls to our quit lines tripled. So mark my words, these ads are going to save lives. In fact, the second phase of this ad campaign is expected to inspire half a million quit attempts and to help at least 50,000 Americans quit smoking forever. Now, that is the $93 million for the anti-tobacco education and support campaign. As I pointed out, over 6 million kids--if we do not do something about it, 6 million kids today in America will die from smoking. Let's talk about the immunization program. The prevention fund is investing in immunization programs that protect kids and save billions of dollars in downstream costs. For every dollar spent on childhood immunizations, Americans save $16 by avoiding the costs of treating preventable diseases. Furthermore, by ensuring that all adults get recommended routine vaccines, we can prevent 40,000 to 50,000 deaths annually. So the $82 million that was cut for immunizations in the prevention fund by the action by the White House could have saved our Nation up to $1.3 billion in unnecessary health care costs. Again, this is the very definition of penny wise and pound foolish budgeting. Investments from the prevention fund are not just at the national level, they are also at the community level. The fund is helping States, cities, and towns to implement evidence-based programs that meet their particular local needs. For example, the State of Illinois has made improvements to its sidewalks and has marked crossings in order to increase levels of student physical activity for students going to school. Because of these improvements, the number of students who are walking to school has doubled. Not only is this good for their health, it is expected to save the school system about $67,000 a year on bus costs. In Florida, the school board of Miami Dade County will soon implement the Play, Eat, Succeed project in order to reduce the prevalence of childhood obesity among students with disabilities and children in the Head Start Program. The project will focus on improving nutritional habits, increasing physical activity levels, and achieving a healthy weight. In California, the Los Angeles County Department of Health has worked with more than 100 clinical teams to provide accessible clinical preventive services to control high blood pressure and cholesterol, reaching approximately 200,000 adults just in Los Angeles County alone. In my State of Iowa, the Black Hawk County Board of Health is working with the local agency on aging to implement the Better Choices, Better Health Program. This initiative is designed to help individuals who are living with chronic conditions to find practical ways to self-manage pain, fatigue, and to make healthier nutrition and exercise choices, to set realistic goals, to understand treatment options and communicate with family and health care providers about their condition. I mention all of these to show that the prevention fund is not just top-down from Washington; we are trying to encourage communities, cities, towns, counties, and, yes, some States to do work on their own, to come up with innovative ideas on how to encourage people to live healthier lives, to prevent smoking, to, for instance, get more kids to walk to school. And this is a big problem. A lot of kids in America can walk to school, but they do not have sidewalks, they do not have safe passages to school, so they take a bus. Simple things like that are done at the local level with the prevention fund, and when local levels experiment and do things like this and they find that they work, then other people adopt it. To me, this is one of the key elements of the prevention fund. It is sort of letting a thousand flowers bloom, getting more ideas out there from people at the local level on what they can do, how they can buy into this. What can they do, and how can they buy into this to have a good prevention and wellness program on the local level? Let's look at the return on investment. We always wonder about the return on investment for the kind of money we spend in government. The prevention fund all across America is investing in proven locally developed programs, as I mentioned, that promote health and wellness, and they save lives. Not only is this improving our health outcomes but it will save us money. According to a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Diabetes Prevention Program to prevent or delay nearly 885,000 cases of type 2 diabetes would save our health system about $5.7 billion over the next 25 years. The National Diabetes Prevention Program is a public-private partnership of health organizations that work together to prevent type 2 diabetes to life style change programs right in our home communities. Given that in 2007 diabetes alone accounted for about $116 billion in direct medical costs, it is all the more critical that we continue to invest in proven programs such as this. I want to point out that for these investments, for every dollar we put in a childhood immunization series, it has been proven we saved $16.50. Yet if I am not mistaken, the White House is taking about $85 million out of this fund--penny wise and pound foolish. Tobacco control programs: For every $1 we invest, we are saving $5. Chronic disease prevention: For every $1 we spend, we save $5.60. For workplace wellness programs: $3.27 for every $1 we spend. Any way you look at it, in all of these programs, just the return alone--not mentioning the productivity of people who are healthier, who don't smoke, who don't have chronic illnesses--their productivity is much higher than those who have chronic illnesses. The list goes on and on. The Trust for America's Health released a study showing that a 5-percent reduction in the obesity rate could yield more than $600 billion in savings on health care costs over 20 years. Again, this is from the Trust for America's Health. A 5-percent reduction in the obesity rate, 5 percent only, could yield more than $600 billion in savings on health care costs over 20 years. Studies such as this confirm what common sense tells us. Your mother was right; prevention is the best medicine for our bodies and for our budgets alike. That is why nearly 800 organizations have spoken against misguided efforts to slash or eliminate the prevention fund. Despite ill-advised efforts to cut or eliminate the prevention fund, most Americans understand what is at stake. Prior to creation of the prevention fund, for every dollar spent on health care, 75 cents went to treating patients with chronic diseases, while only 4 cents was spent on efforts to prevent those diseases. Again, before the Affordable Care Act, 75 cents of every health care dollar was spent on treating you after you got sick. Only 4 cents was spent on preventing those diseases. This chronic underinvestment has had devastating consequences. Nearly half of American adults have at least one chronic condition. Two-thirds of the increase in health care spending between 1987 and 2000 was due to increased prevalence of chronic diseases. We had a briefing from three highly acclaimed medical practitioners 2 or 3 weeks ago, and they pointed out that two-thirds of the money we spend in Medicare goes for treating chronic illnesses--two-thirds. When we talk about the money we are spending on Medicare and how do we control Medicare costs, some people say we have got to make it tougher for people to get Medicare or you have got to cut down on Medicare, when the answer is staring us right straight in the face: prevention and wellness programs. For elderly people who do have a chronic condition, there are interventions that will save us money and make their lives better through prevention and wellness programs. We know that. There are evidence-based programs which are proven to work. The prevention fund gives us an unprecedented opportunity to bend the cost curve by jumpstarting the transformation of America into a true wellness society, a society that focuses on preventing disease, saving lives and saving money. As I said, the fund is doing both; it is saving lives and saving money. To slash this fund as the White House intends to do is bad public policy and bad priorities. To take money from the prevention fund is to cannibalize the Affordable Care Act in ways that will both cost us money and lives. I think it is a violation of both the letter and the spirit of this landmark law. Again, one more time, we know prevention saves lives. Cancer deaths: About 567,000 people die from cancer annually in the United States. Fifty percent of those are preventable and much cheaper than all the long-term care costs, not to mention the devastation that happens in families' lives when a parent is lost to cancer. Preventable diseases, heart disease, diabetes, and stroke: About 796,000 people die from heart disease, diabetes, and stroke annually in the United States. Eighty percent of those are preventable. Yet we are going to cut money from the prevention fund? It doesn't make sense. Prior to the Senate adjourning for this last recess, I put a hold on Ms. Marilyn Tavenner's nomination to serve as the Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Ms. Tavenner, in her role as Acting Administrator, signed a directive in March that channeled critical funds away from prevention. I must say, as the chairman of the committee, and as the author of the prevention fund in the Affordable Care Act, I was never notified until the decision had been made. I was not consulted. No one was. It was just sort of signed away. Again, I want to make it very clear the hold I put on Ms. Tavenner was not a secret hold. In fact, I don't believe in secret holds. Too often people put on secret holds and you don't know who is doing it. I would never do that. I issued my hold publicly. Why? In order to heighten public awareness of this administration's ill-advised policy decision to cut prevention money and hopefully to get the White House to start to reconsider. I wanted to give people in the White House the chance to understand that their assault on the prevention fund is shortsighted, destructive, and perhaps suggests other sources of funding for implementing and overseeing the marketplace. Last year the administration, as I said, approved a $5 billion--and I am correct here--a $5 billion cut to the fund as part of the middle- class tax bill. That was last year. I thought after that we had an agreement that was not going to happen again, the clearer cut agreement. Now the administration has made it clear they intend to move forward with even more cuts--$332 million this year--to the prevention fund. What we are seeing from the administration is, at best, mixed signals and, at worst, a betrayal of the letter and spirit of the Affordable Care Act. I repeat, these are bad policy choices. This choice to take money out of the prevention fund will have negative serious consequences for the future health of the American people. Again, I don't know and I am unsure as to who is giving advice to the President, but I want to say to President Obama, I think you are getting bad advice, bad advice on where the money is coming from and how it is affecting the prevention fund, and there are other sources of funding for the marketplace other than the prevention fund. I want to make it clear I don't want to interfere with the important work of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. I also happen to believe Ms. Tavenner is very well qualified and strongly qualified to be the next Administrator. I believe it is urgent to have an effective leader at the helm of CMS as we enter a critical stage in implementing the Affordable Care Act. Accordingly, I am removing my hold on her nomination. However, as I do so, I repeat, it is deeply disappointing and disturbing that the White House once again is raiding the Prevention and Public Health Fund. I would hope Ms. Tavenner, in her future role as the head of the CMS, will understand that while she works for the President, advice and consent of the U.S. Senate might be something worth considering in her future actions. I hope and expect again that the White House will respect the intent of Congress in creating the prevention fund, not as an afterthought but as a critical feature of the Affordable Care Act-- every bit as critical as the exchanges, the marketplace, and everything else. I hope the administration will join us in fighting for the prevention fund and in making smart, evidence-based investments in prevention and wellness. This is what real health reform is about. It is not about how you pay the bills. If all we are going to do in the Affordable Care Act is jiggle around on how we pay the bills, we are sunk. Real health reform is about changing our society away from a sick-care system to a true health care system, keeping people healthy, promoting wellness, having prevention programs at every level of society, in our schools, in our workplaces, and in our communities from the earliest moments of life, immunization programs. This is for those who are elderly, who may have a chronic condition but who can control that, at less cost and with healthier lives through good prevention and wellness programs. That is what true health reform is about, and it is our best bet for creating a healthier and more prosperous Nation. To that important end, the Congress and the White House should not be working at cross purposes. We should be working together. I say we must rededicate ourselves to the great goal of creating a reformed health care system that has a major focus on prevention and wellness, not just for a few but for all Americans. That is what the intention was of the Prevention and Public Health Fund. As I say again, and I say very clearly, I don't know who is advising the President, but I think the President is getting bad advice. I understand the President has a lot on his plate, everything from Syria to Afghanistan--a lot. I understand that. I hope that those in the White House who are advising the President would take a closer look and find some way of replenishing that $332 million and hopefully making some ironclad agreements that they are not going to raid the fund again next year. I thought we had an agreement that last year was it, that $5 billion was it. I thought we had that agreement. I was operating under that assumption. Will we take more money out of the prevention fund again next year too to meet some exigency that may come up? That is what has been wrong with our sick-care system in the past. We are so focused on paying today's bills we don't focus on the future and how to keep people healthy. We just pay today's bills, keep paying the bills and paying the bills. Like clueless dodos, we wonder why health care costs are skyrocketing. It is because we don't focus on keeping people healthy in the first place. So I will remove my hold on Ms. Tavenner, but I hope the administration will find a way to replenish that $332 million this year and make a firm commitment to not raiding this fund in the future.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in executive session on Wednesday, May 8, 2013, at 4 p.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to mark up the nomination of Thomas E. Perez, to be Secretary of Labor. For further information regarding this meeting, please contact the Committee at (202) 224-5375.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in open session on Thursday, May 9, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Pharmaceutical Compounding: Proposed Legislative Solution.'' For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Emily Schlichting of the committee staff on (202) 224-6840

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in open session on Thursday, May 16, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Pending Nominations to the National Labor Relations Board.'' For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Anna Porto of the committee staff on (202) 224-5441.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, more than 20 years ago, family members of workers killed on the job joined with safety advocates to launch Workers Memorial Day--a day of remembrance and advocacy. To honor the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, April 28 was chosen as Workers Memorial Day. The passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which created OSHA, was one of the monumental legislative achievements of the 20th century. This landmark legislation, passed over four decades ago, reflects the values that all Americans share: that workers shouldn't have to risk their lives to earn their livelihood, and that workers, employers, and the government must all work together to keep people safe and healthy on the job. Since that time, workplace safety and health conditions have improved dramatically. In the year the OSH Act was enacted, our country saw 13,800 on-the-job deaths. Forty years later, in 2010, that number is down by more than 60 percent. It is without dispute that this legislation has saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of American workers in its 40-year lifespan, a remarkable accomplishment. In addition to saving lives, OSHA saves our country money. The total financial cost of job injuries and illnesses is enormous--estimated at $250 billion to $300 billion a year. Preventing illnesses and injuries before they happen makes economic sense, in addition to being the right thing to do. So today, on Worker's Memorial Day, we celebrate the success of OSHA. But we also must acknowledge its limitations. Too many workers remain at serious risk of injury, illness or death on the job, as demonstrated by the recent fertilizer explosion in West Texas that killed at least 14 and injured over 200. In 2011, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 4,693 workers were killed on the job--an average of 13 workers every day--and nearly 3 million nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses were reported that same year. In our great State of Iowa, 93 workers died on the job in 2011. Additionally, 43 Iowans died from injuries sustained while working, and untold numbers of Iowans were injured from exposures in the workplace. We absolutely can--and must-- do better. That's why I am a co-sponsor of the Protecting America's Workers Act, a piece of legislation that would build on OSHA's successes and save the lives of countless additional workers. The bill makes commonsense reforms to bring our workplace safety laws into the 21st century, with minimal burden on the vast majority of employers that comply with the law. One critical aspect of the Protecting America's Workers Act is that it will enhance the protection provided to workers who blow the whistle on unsafe conditions in the workplace. OSHA does not have the necessary resources to inspect every workplace in the country on a regular basis, so whistleblowers play an essential role in identifying dangerous conditions. Because OSHA enforcement is aided by whistleblowers, it is in all of our interests to protect whistleblowers from unfair retaliation so they are not afraid to come forward. But the whistleblower provision in OSHA has not been significantly amended or improved since it was enacted and has fallen far behind similar retaliation protections in other worker protection, public health, and environmental laws. The Protecting America's Workers Act will remedy that problem by strengthening whistleblower protections so more workers will feel comfortable reporting dangerous conditions and work environments can improve for all. In addition to protecting whistleblowers, the Protecting America's Workers Act also extends OSHA protections to more workers, increases penalties for employers who break the law, enhances public accountability, and clarifies the duty of employers in providing a safe work environment. These changes together comprise a critical step towards providing a safer workplace for every worker in our country, and I plan to do everything possible to fight for this important legislation. While we have made tremendous progress in that last 40 years under OSHA, there is much more work to be done. All Americans have the right to a safe workplace, and we should not rest until all of our fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, families, and friends can go to work each day knowing they will come home safely again each night.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, for many years we have witnessed with great regret the aging of America's farmers and ranchers and the decline in the number of agricultural operations in our country. Simply put, our nation will be stronger and better if more beginning farmers and ranchers are able to succeed those who inevitably retire and leave the business. We need new generations of farmers and ranchers to produce critical supplies of food, fuel, and fiber, to care for and conserve our soil, water, and other natural resources, and to contribute as members of healthy and vibrant rural communities. Many people across America yearn for an opportunity to get a start and build a successful agricultural operation, yet they face daunting challenges and obstacles. The legislation we are introducing today will help families and individuals across our nation apply their talents, motivation, and dedication to start and continue farm and ranch operations and revitalize rural America. Beginning farmers and ranchers will benefit from practical assistance in this bill, including effective training and mentoring, better access to and careful use of credit, enhanced support for conservation, and help in starting and succeeding in profitable enterprises such as value-added businesses. We have previously adopted a number of successful initiatives to assist beginning farmers and ranchers, including in the 2002 and 2008 farm bills enacted when I was proud to serve as chairman of the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee. This bill will extend, build upon, and strengthen existing programs and initiatives and ensure their continued effectiveness and success. A key feature of the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act of 2013 is to extend and strengthen the beginning farmer and rancher development program, which we enacted in 2008. In this program, USDA provides competitively-awarded grants to qualified organizations that deliver training and education for beginning farmers and ranchers. This new legislation makes it a new priority for USDA to issue grants to support agricultural rehabilitation and vocational training for military veterans and to deliver training and education to help veterans who are beginning farmers and ranchers. The bill also would extend and increase mandatory funding for this development program to $20 million in each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018. This legislation also strengthens in several ways the assistance USDA provides to enable beginning farmers and ranchers to assemble the financial resources they need to start and build a successful operation. It codifies in statute a microloan program in which young beginning farmers and ranchers who qualify could borrow up to $35,000 for operating expenses at reduced interest rates and with simplified paperwork. Also included in this bill is mandatory funding at $5 million a year to carry out the individual development accounts pilot program that was enacted in the 2008 farm bill. Grants under this pilot program would support State-level individual development account initiatives to help beginning farmers and ranchers build savings that can then be invested in their agricultural operations. Several other provisions of the bill update and improve the existing USDA programs to help beginning farmers and ranchers obtain loans for operating expenses, land purchases, and conservation practices. To encourage and assist beginning farmers and ranchers in maintaining and adopting sound conservation practices, the bill extends and strengthens several initiatives enacted in previous farm bills. Of special importance, the bill expands the options and financial incentives for maintaining conservation on land that comes out of Conservation Reserve Program, CRP, contracts if it is leased or sold to beginning farmers or ranchers. Beginning farmers and ranchers would also receive more help through the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program, enhanced whole-farm conservation planning and technical assistance, and increased advanced conservation cost-share payments. Other features of the bill will help beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers better understand and utilize insurance programs and risk management systems. In order to help beginning farmers and ranchers build markets and increase income through adding value to their commodities, the bill enhances opportunities for beginning farmers and ranchers to receive USDA value- added producer grants and provides new, increased mandatory funding for such grants. It also creates a special USDA veterans agricultural liaison position to focus upon helping veterans understand and benefit from USDA programs, especially those for beginning farmers and ranchers. In conclusion, I am proud of the initiatives we have previously enacted to help beginning farmers and ranchers create and pursue opportunities and realize their goals and dreams. By building on the success of the existing programs, this legislation will lend more help to beginning farmers and ranchers and in doing so strengthen American agriculture, our rural communities, and our nation as a whole. I am grateful to the cosponsors of this bill and urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, for many years we have witnessed with great regret the aging of America's farmers and ranchers and the decline in the number of agricultural operations in our country. Simply put, our nation will be stronger and better if more beginning farmers and ranchers are able to succeed those who inevitably retire and leave the business. We need new generations of farmers and ranchers to produce critical supplies of food, fuel, and fiber, to care for and conserve our soil, water, and other natural resources, and to contribute as members of healthy and vibrant rural communities. Many people across America yearn for an opportunity to get a start and build a successful agricultural operation, yet they face daunting challenges and obstacles. The legislation we are introducing today will help families and individuals across our nation apply their talents, motivation, and dedication to start and continue farm and ranch operations and revitalize rural America. Beginning farmers and ranchers will benefit from practical assistance in this bill, including effective training and mentoring, better access to and careful use of credit, enhanced support for conservation, and help in starting and succeeding in profitable enterprises such as value-added businesses. We have previously adopted a number of successful initiatives to assist beginning farmers and ranchers, including in the 2002 and 2008 farm bills enacted when I was proud to serve as chairman of the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee. This bill will extend, build upon, and strengthen existing programs and initiatives and ensure their continued effectiveness and success. A key feature of the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act of 2013 is to extend and strengthen the beginning farmer and rancher development program, which we enacted in 2008. In this program, USDA provides competitively-awarded grants to qualified organizations that deliver training and education for beginning farmers and ranchers. This new legislation makes it a new priority for USDA to issue grants to support agricultural rehabilitation and vocational training for military veterans and to deliver training and education to help veterans who are beginning farmers and ranchers. The bill also would extend and increase mandatory funding for this development program to $20 million in each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018. This legislation also strengthens in several ways the assistance USDA provides to enable beginning farmers and ranchers to assemble the financial resources they need to start and build a successful operation. It codifies in statute a microloan program in which young beginning farmers and ranchers who qualify could borrow up to $35,000 for operating expenses at reduced interest rates and with simplified paperwork. Also included in this bill is mandatory funding at $5 million a year to carry out the individual development accounts pilot program that was enacted in the 2008 farm bill. Grants under this pilot program would support State-level individual development account initiatives to help beginning farmers and ranchers build savings that can then be invested in their agricultural operations. Several other provisions of the bill update and improve the existing USDA programs to help beginning farmers and ranchers obtain loans for operating expenses, land purchases, and conservation practices. To encourage and assist beginning farmers and ranchers in maintaining and adopting sound conservation practices, the bill extends and strengthens several initiatives enacted in previous farm bills. Of special importance, the bill expands the options and financial incentives for maintaining conservation on land that comes out of Conservation Reserve Program, CRP, contracts if it is leased or sold to beginning farmers or ranchers. Beginning farmers and ranchers would also receive more help through the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program, enhanced whole-farm conservation planning and technical assistance, and increased advanced conservation cost-share payments. Other features of the bill will help beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers better understand and utilize insurance programs and risk management systems. In order to help beginning farmers and ranchers build markets and increase income through adding value to their commodities, the bill enhances opportunities for beginning farmers and ranchers to receive USDA value- added producer grants and provides new, increased mandatory funding for such grants. It also creates a special USDA veterans agricultural liaison position to focus upon helping veterans understand and benefit from USDA programs, especially those for beginning farmers and ranchers. In conclusion, I am proud of the initiatives we have previously enacted to help beginning farmers and ranchers create and pursue opportunities and realize their goals and dreams. By building on the success of the existing programs, this legislation will lend more help to beginning farmers and ranchers and in doing so strengthen American agriculture, our rural communities, and our nation as a whole. I am grateful to the cosponsors of this bill and urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I was honored to recommend to the President that he nominate Jane Kelly to serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Today I encourage my colleagues to vote for her confirmation, which will be the first vote at noon. Let me begin by thanking Senator Leahy and his staff for their hard work in advancing Ms. Kelly's nomination in such a timely manner. I also thank my senior colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, for his invaluable support and assistance. For all the years we have served together, Senator Grassley and I have cooperated in a spirit of good will on judicial nominations in our State. I am grateful that tradition has continued. Jane Kelly possesses all the qualifications necessary to assume the responsibilities of a Federal appellate judge. Before recommending Ms. Kelly to the President, I reviewed a very strong field of candidates for this position. She stood out as a person of truly outstanding intellect and character, with a reputation as an extremely talented lawyer with a deep sense of compassion and fairness. Not surprisingly, she enjoys wide bipartisan support from the Iowa legal community. Judge Michael Melloy, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, and whose seat on the Eighth Circuit Ms. Kelly is nominated to fill, said Ms. Kelly ``is very intelligent and thoughtful.'' Judge David Hansen, who was President George H.W. Bush's nominee to serve on the Eighth Circuit and for whom Ms. Kelly clerked, said: ``She is a forthright woman of high integrity and of honest character'' who ``will be a welcome addition to the court.'' I might also point out for the record that both of those nominees under Republican Presidents I was proud to support, under the leadership of Senator Grassley. Federal District Court Judge Stephanie Rose remembered Ms. Kelly ``has a great blend of personality, skills and common sense to make a great lawyer and judge.'' The American Bar Association gave her a unanimous ``qualified'' rating. Ms. Kelly is a credit to all of us who have chosen to be in public service. She earned her bachelor's degree summa cum laude from Duke, served as a Fulbright Scholar, and received her J.D. cum laude from Harvard Law School. After law school she was a law clerk to Judge Donald Porter of the District Court of South Dakota and to Judge David Hansen on the Iowa Eighth Circuit. She could easily have commanded a big salary with a top law firm, but instead for over 20 years she has opted for public service and long hours as a Federal public defender. We are fortunate she seeks to continue her public service to Iowa and our Nation by serving as a Federal judge. Let me conclude with two additional notes about Ms. Kelly's nomination. First, if confirmed, Ms. Kelly will only be the second female judge in the history of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, a court established in 1891. While 56 men have sat on that court, to date there has only been one woman, Diana Murphy of Minnesota. President Obama has nominated approximately 100 former prosecutors to the Federal bench, including one I recommended, former U.S. attorney Stephanie Rose, to the Southern District of Iowa. Among recent Presidents that is the highest percentage of former prosecutors to be nominated to the Federal bench. These are all outstanding attorneys and dedicated public servants. As Judge Melloy recently noted with respect to Ms. Kelly: ``It will be good to have someone from the public defender realm on the bench.'' Ms. Kelly has served for more than 20 years in the Federal defender's office, where she has argued hundreds of cases on behalf of indigent clients. She has fought tirelessly to ensure that the rights of all are protected, and she has worked to give meaning to the phrase above the Supreme Court, ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' This is a critically important perspective that she will bring to the court. As an aside, it strikes me as especially fitting that Ms. Kelly, a career public defender, has been nominated for the Federal bench this year as we observe the 50th anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright. As we all know, that landmark decision recognized that every person accused of a crime, no matter how poor, is guaranteed the right to counsel. At its core, Gideon is the promise of justice for all, including our most vulnerable citizens. This is an ideal to which Ms. Kelly has dedicated her entire legal career. Jane Kelly is superbly qualified to serve as the U.S. Court of Appeals judge for the Eighth Circuit. I urge all of my colleagues to support her nomination and confirmation. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I strongly support the Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety Act. This bill brings the Nation's mine health and safety laws up to date, gives mine safety officials the ability to effectively investigate and shut down habitually dangerous mines, and holds mine operators accountable for putting their workers in unnecessary danger. It has been over 3 years since April 5, 2010, when a massive explosion ripped through Massey Energy's Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia, tragically killing 29 miners. As the son of a coal miner, I continue to feel these losses very deeply, on a very personal level. My heart goes out to the family and coworkers of every worker who is killed or injured on the job. Too many of these tragedies are preventable, and we should not rest until the day comes when no hard- working American has to sacrifice his or her life for a paycheck. The Upper Big Branch catastrophe spurred numerous investigations, and the resulting reports have yielded insight into specific ways that the government can act to improve the health and safety of our Nation's miners. Under the leadership of Joe Main, the Mine and Safety Health Administration has already taken many such important steps. One of their bold new safety initiatives that flowed from the Upper Big Branch explosion was to overhaul the ``pattern of violations'' process, which targets the worst actors in the mining industry. The pattern of violations regulation addresses a root cause of the Upper Big Branch disaster by strengthening worker protections at mines where operators are repeatedly and flagrantly disregarding safety rules. It is a substantial step forward that will help address the problems at our most dangerous mines before disaster strikes. And MSHA has made similar progress on other recommendations stemming from the Upper Big Branch disaster. Indeed, according to a March 31, 2013, report from the Labor Department's Office of Inspector General, MSHA has already implemented or is on track to timely address all of the 100 recommendations with deadlines from the investigative teams that studied the Upper Big Branch explosion. I applaud these efforts wholeheartedly, and I am pleased to mark our Nation's progress in mine safety reform. On-the-job deaths of miners reached a record low in 2012 of 35. But 35 deaths means 35 brothers, sons, uncles, and fathers were stolen away from their families last year--a number that is still far too high. Catastrophes like the Upper Big Branch explosion make it clear that our work here is unfinished. To prevent yet another disaster and more unnecessary deaths, Congress must do its part. It is time for the Senate to take action and ensure that a disaster like the Upper Big Branch explosion will never happen again. We need to strengthen the oversight system for the most dangerous mines, fortify penalties for operators who willfully put miners at risk, and make sure miners are protected if they raise safety concerns. And that is why I strongly support the Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety Act of 2013. This bill is an important step in making good on an obligation we have to health and safety of our courageous miners and their families. This bill stands for some fundamental principles I believe are shared by all Americans. We believe that every American deserves to go to work without fearing for his or her life. We believe that responsible businesses that put safety first shouldn't have to compete with businesses that prioritize a quick buck over the safety of their employees. We believe that employers who put workers' lives at risk should face serious consequences that will force them to change their ways. We believe that companies shouldn't be able to hide behind high priced lawyers and convoluted corporate structures to avoid being held accountable for their actions. We believe that the critical agencies charged with protecting workers' lives should have all the tools they need to get the job done. We believe that whistleblowers are the first line of defense in safe workplaces and deserve strong protection from discrimination and retaliation. The Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety Act of 2013 reflects these core principles and includes effective policies to achieve them. Its passage would be a major step forward for workplace safety. This legislation also makes common sense reforms to the Occupational Safety and Health Act, OSHA, which has not been significantly updated since it was passed over 40 years ago. For example, whistleblower protections under the OSH Act are toothless and unfairly tilted against workers who risk their career to protect the public welfare. This bill makes essential changes to ensure that workers are protected, including lengthening OSHA's 30-day statute of limitation for whistleblowers, providing for reinstatement while the legal process unfolds for cases with an initial finding of merit and giving the worker the right to file their own claim in court if the government does not investigate the claim in a timely manner. The bill also strengthens criminal and civil penalties that, at present, are too weak to protect workers. Under current law, an employer may be charged--at most--with a misdemeanor when a willful violation of OSHA leads to a worker's death. Under the Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety Act of 2013, felony charges are available for an employer's repeated and willful violations of OSHA that result in a worker's death or serious injury. The bill also updates OSHA civil penalties--which have been unchanged since 1990--and sets a minimum penalty of $50,000 for a worker's death caused by a willful violation. In addition to toughening sanctions for employers who needlessly expose their employees to risk, the bill makes sure that the government is responsive to workers when investigating charges. It guarantees victims the right to meet with the person investigating the claim, to be notified of and receive copies of reports or citations issued in the investigation, and to be notified of and have the right to appear at proceedings related to their case. Victims of retaliation should not suffer the double indignity of being ignored by government officials charged with protecting them. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support the Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety Act of 2013. This important bill would take a tremendous step forward for mine safety and could ultimately save the lives of thousands of hard-working Americans.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I strongly support the Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety Act. This bill brings the Nation's mine health and safety laws up to date, gives mine safety officials the ability to effectively investigate and shut down habitually dangerous mines, and holds mine operators accountable for putting their workers in unnecessary danger. It has been over 3 years since April 5, 2010, when a massive explosion ripped through Massey Energy's Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia, tragically killing 29 miners. As the son of a coal miner, I continue to feel these losses very deeply, on a very personal level. My heart goes out to the family and coworkers of every worker who is killed or injured on the job. Too many of these tragedies are preventable, and we should not rest until the day comes when no hard- working American has to sacrifice his or her life for a paycheck. The Upper Big Branch catastrophe spurred numerous investigations, and the resulting reports have yielded insight into specific ways that the government can act to improve the health and safety of our Nation's miners. Under the leadership of Joe Main, the Mine and Safety Health Administration has already taken many such important steps. One of their bold new safety initiatives that flowed from the Upper Big Branch explosion was to overhaul the ``pattern of violations'' process, which targets the worst actors in the mining industry. The pattern of violations regulation addresses a root cause of the Upper Big Branch disaster by strengthening worker protections at mines where operators are repeatedly and flagrantly disregarding safety rules. It is a substantial step forward that will help address the problems at our most dangerous mines before disaster strikes. And MSHA has made similar progress on other recommendations stemming from the Upper Big Branch disaster. Indeed, according to a March 31, 2013, report from the Labor Department's Office of Inspector General, MSHA has already implemented or is on track to timely address all of the 100 recommendations with deadlines from the investigative teams that studied the Upper Big Branch explosion. I applaud these efforts wholeheartedly, and I am pleased to mark our Nation's progress in mine safety reform. On-the-job deaths of miners reached a record low in 2012 of 35. But 35 deaths means 35 brothers, sons, uncles, and fathers were stolen away from their families last year--a number that is still far too high. Catastrophes like the Upper Big Branch explosion make it clear that our work here is unfinished. To prevent yet another disaster and more unnecessary deaths, Congress must do its part. It is time for the Senate to take action and ensure that a disaster like the Upper Big Branch explosion will never happen again. We need to strengthen the oversight system for the most dangerous mines, fortify penalties for operators who willfully put miners at risk, and make sure miners are protected if they raise safety concerns. And that is why I strongly support the Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety Act of 2013. This bill is an important step in making good on an obligation we have to health and safety of our courageous miners and their families. This bill stands for some fundamental principles I believe are shared by all Americans. We believe that every American deserves to go to work without fearing for his or her life. We believe that responsible businesses that put safety first shouldn't have to compete with businesses that prioritize a quick buck over the safety of their employees. We believe that employers who put workers' lives at risk should face serious consequences that will force them to change their ways. We believe that companies shouldn't be able to hide behind high priced lawyers and convoluted corporate structures to avoid being held accountable for their actions. We believe that the critical agencies charged with protecting workers' lives should have all the tools they need to get the job done. We believe that whistleblowers are the first line of defense in safe workplaces and deserve strong protection from discrimination and retaliation. The Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety Act of 2013 reflects these core principles and includes effective policies to achieve them. Its passage would be a major step forward for workplace safety. This legislation also makes common sense reforms to the Occupational Safety and Health Act, OSHA, which has not been significantly updated since it was passed over 40 years ago. For example, whistleblower protections under the OSH Act are toothless and unfairly tilted against workers who risk their career to protect the public welfare. This bill makes essential changes to ensure that workers are protected, including lengthening OSHA's 30-day statute of limitation for whistleblowers, providing for reinstatement while the legal process unfolds for cases with an initial finding of merit and giving the worker the right to file their own claim in court if the government does not investigate the claim in a timely manner. The bill also strengthens criminal and civil penalties that, at present, are too weak to protect workers. Under current law, an employer may be charged--at most--with a misdemeanor when a willful violation of OSHA leads to a worker's death. Under the Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety Act of 2013, felony charges are available for an employer's repeated and willful violations of OSHA that result in a worker's death or serious injury. The bill also updates OSHA civil penalties--which have been unchanged since 1990--and sets a minimum penalty of $50,000 for a worker's death caused by a willful violation. In addition to toughening sanctions for employers who needlessly expose their employees to risk, the bill makes sure that the government is responsive to workers when investigating charges. It guarantees victims the right to meet with the person investigating the claim, to be notified of and receive copies of reports or citations issued in the investigation, and to be notified of and have the right to appear at proceedings related to their case. Victims of retaliation should not suffer the double indignity of being ignored by government officials charged with protecting them. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support the Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety Act of 2013. This important bill would take a tremendous step forward for mine safety and could ultimately save the lives of thousands of hard-working Americans.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today along with my colleague from Vermont to introduce a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the so-called chained CPI should not be used for the purpose of calculating Social Security benefits or benefits for disabled veterans. As we work to reduce the deficit in a balanced and responsible manner, many have discussed changing the measure of inflation used to calculate the cost-of-living allowances to a measure of inflation called the chained CPI. Now, some claim that the chained CPI is a more accurate measure of inflation because it takes into account the fact that consumers may change their spending behavior and substitute items with lower priced increases for items with higher priced increases. As a result of this feature, the chained CPI results in a lower measure of inflation. All of this may seem very technical, but the impact of requiring Social Security or veterans disability COLAS--cost-of-living adjustments--to be based on the chained CPI is anything but technical. It will have real and negative impacts on our seniors and those who become disabled as a result of service in the Armed Forces. In fact, the most adversely impacted would be the oldest and the poorest. I do not think anything could be more unfair or inappropriate or unnecessary. As this first chart shows, the chained CPI is a real cut in Social Security benefits. According to Social Security Works, this policy would reduce annual Social Security benefits for the average worker at age 75 by $658 a year, by age 85 by $1,147 a year, and by age 95 by $1,622 a year. Over on this side of the chart we see the cumulative cut; in other words, what would happen over the years. From age 65 to 75 people would lose about $4,600, by age 85 they would lose $13,900, and by age 95 they would lose $28,000. I think a couple things this chart shows is that people are penalized for living longer--the longer they live, the more they are penalized. Now, one might say: Well, $658 a year by the time you are age 75, that does not sound like a lot. Yes, not to some of us, not to us with our incomes. Look at the kind of retirement programs we have. If you are in the upper quintile, of course, that does not seem like much. But, again, if we look at a second chart I have, we will see who really kind of gets hurt, and it is the poorer you are. Let's put it this way: Let's say you are 65, and your total income is less than $12,554 a year. That puts you below the poverty line. The total amount of your income that comes from Social Security is 84.3 percent. Well, you might think, if you are making less than that, wouldn't all your money come from Social Security? Well, the answer is yes, but--and I question people about this--if you are making that little amount of money, and you are over 65, you are probably working at some part-time job. Maybe you are baby-sitting, maybe you are cleaning houses, maybe you are a greeter at a store. You are probably doing something to add to your income, but it would only amount to about 16 percent. Most of it comes from Social Security. We can see from this chart, even after you get up to $20,000 a year, it is about the same. About 84 percent of your money comes from Social Security. So if you take a cut in Social Security, and you are lower income, that is where you get whacked the most. Of course, when you get up here to the fifth quintile, you are making more than $57,957 a year. Only 17 percent of your income comes from Social Security. So you say, well, if you took $600-some a year from that, yes, you can probably afford it. But even if you look at up to $57,000 a year in the fourth quintile, almost half--43.5 percent--of your total income comes from Social Security. So even if you are making $30,000, $35,000 a year, after age 65 half of your income comes from Social Security. So, again, when you start making these kinds of cuts in the chained CPI, you might say: Well, it is only $658 a year. For someone in the lower quintiles, that is like a month's worth of food, perhaps 6 weeks' worth of food. Tell me that does not have an effect. Of course it has an effect. If you are in the upper income, you probably do not have that much to worry about. That is why the pernicious effect of chained CPI is that the longer you live, the more you are penalized; and the lower your income, the bigger whack you are taking out of your total income. So, again, as people get older, they are more likely to have depleted all their sources of retirement income, assuming they have any to begin with. So a couple of facts I think are pertinent: First, today only one in five Americans has a defined benefit pension that will last until the day they die--one in five. When I first came to Congress it was one in two. One out of every two Americans had a defined benefit pension that would last them until the day they died. Now it is one in five, and it is getting less all the time. Second--and this startles a lot of people--50 percent of the American populace have less than $10,000 in savings--less than $10,000. One out of every two Americans has less than $10,000 in savings. Well, you can see, if you have that when you retire, that is going to be gone pretty soon, so then you are going to rely, again, strictly on Social Security. So when you put those two facts together--four out of five have no pension, and half have less than $10,000 in savings--then you see that soon after you retire, the only thing you have left is Social Security. So it is already hard enough now for millions of people hoping to retire, but then you put chained CPI in there, and you really are hitting the oldest and the poorest. So, again, I know people are saying: Well, we have to do something to save Social Security for those in the future. Well, I agree with that. That is why whenever I see an honest assessment of Social Security for the future, an honest assessment that says Social Security cannot continue to exist as it is, well, I agree with that--as it is. But then there are two approaches. Do you whack the benefits or do you increase the revenues that come into Social Security? Two different approaches. You do not have to cut the benefits. In fact, I would say that by talking about chained CPI, the signal you are sending to the younger generation is: Well, maybe when you get there we will whack it some more. A lot of young people are saying, I do not know if Social Security is going to be there for me when I get that age. When they hear people talking about chained CPI and cutting this, they are right to be worried whether we are going to keep our promise to this next generation that we will have a Social Security system they can rely on and count on. So what is to be done? Well, last year I introduced legislation that would basically extend the life of the Social Security trust fund to 2050 and give a $65-a-month increase to every Social Security recipient, and yet extend the life of it for over 18 more years. How do we do that? Very simply. We raise the wage cap for people who pay into Social Security from $113,000 a year, which it is now. Over 10 years we raise it and do away with it after 10 years. There is another approach too. The National Academy of Social Insurance, NASI, did a poll earlier this year. They asked: Would you be willing to go from 6.2 percent paying into Social Security to 7.2 percent, a 1-percent increase over 20 years, if that would help secure Social Security? Seventy percent of Republicans and Democrats said yes. Over 20 years, a 1-percent increase, that is nothing. But if you were to take that and raise the wage cap, you could increase Social Security payments by $65 a month and secure Social Security for up to 75 years. It seems to me if you want to send a message to the young people about the sanctity and stability of Social Security, you would say that rather than we are going to cut, we are going to have this so-called chained CPI. As I said, I know it sounds technical. But it is not technical at all. I once likened chained CPI to an anchor chain. If you are standing on the boat and the anchor chain gets around your ankle and someone throws the anchor overboard, where are you going? You are going down. That is what chained CPI does. The older you get, the more you get hit on. The poorer you are, the more you get hit. So, again, this idea that we have got to somehow cut benefits, have this chained CPI in order to save Social Security is wrong. It is wrong. There are other ways of doing it that would be widely, broadly supported by the American people. Go out and ask any group, ask any group of seniors, do you think we ought to raise the wage cap so someone who is making $500,000 a year pays in at the same rate as someone who is making $50,000 a year? Well, of course. That is not the case now. You make $50,000 a year, you pay into Social Security on every dime you make. If you make $500,000 a year, you are only paying in on the first about 20 cents of every dollar you make. After that you do not pay into Social Security. I think the average American would say, that is not fair. What is good for someone making $100,000 a year ought to be the same for someone making $1 million a year. So there are other ways of securing Social Security. This chained CPI sends the wrong message to young people. It exacerbates the concern young people have, is Social Security going to be there when I retire? I always tell them: Do you believe the U.S. Government will exist when you retire? They say: Well, yes. I say: If that is the case, Social Security will be there, because it is backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. What are we supposed to do? Are we supposed to cut that full faith and credit, and tell the young people, it will be there but we may take cuts here and there may be cuts there? What is a young person to think? Am I going to have what I think I am going to be able to have and count on Social Security? This is a trust. My friend from Vermont is always talking about this is a trust fund. It is a trust. It does not add to the deficit. Think about the word trust. Social Security trust fund. You have got to be able to trust it. Young people need to be able to trust it, that it will be there for them. The best way to undermine that is to go to this chained CPI. With that, I yield to my good friend who knows this issue better than just about anybody I know and who has fought so hard on behalf of Social Security and keeping that trust fund and keeping the trust in Social Security. I yield the floor to Senator Sanders.

Mr. HARKIN. Would the Senator yield for a question? First of all, I thank my colleague from Vermont for being a strong voice on this issue and on so many issues that affect the elderly and especially our veterans. The Senator is the chair of that committee. I am always curious as to why it is that so many of the dark suits here in Washington are always after Social Security. I don't say there is some ill spirit there, although I will say I think the Senator might agree that there are some who would like to privatize Social Security. We know that. They have said that in the past--or partially privatize it. It seems to me that so many people who get involved in this think it is just a little nick. I saw a cartoon of a barber cutting somebody's hair. They had this huge ball of hair, and they were snipping just a couple of little hairs off and saying: That is all we are doing with chained CPI. They think it is such a small thing. It always occurred to me that those people making the decisions, the dark suits, those are all people who probably have good pensions, good retirement systems. They are never going to want for anything. Yet somehow they just think, well, $658 bucks--that is not a big deal, up to 75. But, as the Senator pointed out, $658 in 1 year to someone whose income is $15,000--that could be a month's worth of food, 6 weeks' worth of food.

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

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

Mr. HARKIN. I have a couple of thoughts. I would say to my friend from Vermont, to those who say it is unconstitutional to do those things, I wonder if they ever read the preamble to the Constitution, which is, by the way, part of the Constitution of the United States? We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare. That is part of the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. HARKIN. How we do that obviously can vary from time to time, generation to generation, but the idea that we are here to promote the general welfare as a Federal Government is clearly in the Constitution of the United States. Secondly, the Senator pointed out the idea that Social Security--that this is really a trust fund. People pay into it, and they take out. Now, it has had its problems. But I ask the Senator, if unemployment today were down to less than 5 percent--say, 4 percent--what would the Social Security trust fund look like?

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

Mr. HARKIN. There is one last thing I would say. The Senator mentioned that we have a deficit. We do. We have to address it. We all agree with that. The Senator pointed out that the offshore haven businesses are not paying their fair share of taxes. I would like to ask Senator Sanders one other question. Isn't it a fact--well, the estimates vary; $1 trillion is not stretching the truth--to say that the war in Iraq cost us somewhere close to $1 trillion?

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