>> senior obama administration officials expressed frustration with the automatic budget cuts known as sequestration. describing the law as quote the worst possible way to cut spending. homeland security secretary janet napolitano, housing secretary shaun donovan, and others, spoke at an event hosted by the partnership for public service. an organization that describes itself as a nonpartisan, nonprofit group focusing on improving the federal workforce. this is about an hour. >> i'm the president of the partnership for public service and i will be very brief because i that bad cold. it is a great pleasure to welcome all of you here to psr w., public service recognition week, and it is our intent that it serves as an antidote to s.b. hud which is that bashing all the time. [laughter] seriously we will never get the government we want it all we do is tear it down. amazing things are going on all

the time i public servants, and we need to recognize them if we want to see them replicated by other public service. this is the period of time that has been both congressionally and presidentially determined to be the week when we focus intently on the good things that are public servants are doing to our government is our tool for our collective action, our only tool for collective action, and we need to solve a huge array of challenging problems, problems we see all the time in the news but we don't focus on them until they become part of the news. we see that in recent events with the boston marathon terrorist attack, we see with respect to foreign issues whether it is serious or north korea. we see it when there's an interruption of service, for example, with the air traffic controllers. although there is again only the obvious interruption and not interruption that are taking place across the board and all the very things that government does. we don't recognize the need for these public servants until there's either a crisis or service is interrupted. that's not good enough.

so this week is intended to focus on the great things that are happening. i hope you'll take a look at the service to america medal winners that we are announcing that have been announced already, but that we will be celebrating tomorrow. the honorees, the finalists are just incredible extraordinary people, 31 people, doing amazing things across the board in every issue of critical importance. i also hope you will take a look very briefly at the letter that is on your chair, both for the present recognizing public service recognition week and also the full leadership team of our government, the 15 cabinet members which have signed this letter in support of public service. before getting to the main event, which are looking for to, i also want to recognize that this event, the townhall meeting is being support not just by the partnership, but by a large organization, the public employees roundtable. we are proud to be part of it. it's been in existence for very long time and it's been supporting this event for many, many years.

i think bill should be who's the chairman of thank you, just wanted to single him out. is over here. i also wanted to thank in particular one of my colleagues, jim seymour who stand back there. you see 15 signatures on this letter, and each of them quite willing to do it but they're in much demand obviously, not only did jim seymour letter to track each and every one of these signatures down, but this event so much more that we do as a partnership is with all the work that jim has done. and just an extraordinary public servant himself, so thank you very much, jim. i also want to thank everybody here. we have representatives from all segments of our society, obviously the media, people from government, people from the university world, business leaders and it's so important that all of you see effective, as part and parcel of what you care about. it is our government, not the government. and we believe that it is not people who work in partnership, the part and partnership of all the. we only be partners or to make

sure we have a government that we want and that we deserve. finally coming critically, i have to say on twitter hashtag which is psrw, and let folks know that we do have a fairly sizable online audience as well, and so will try to repeat questions for them, and likewise if you question at the end you can use, recognize that they are there listening as well. so with that i had the great pleasure and honor of turn the podium over to someone who doesn't have a cold and you will note from lester, also does not have a broken arm, which has been designated to shaun donovan, it seems to be the tradition that these events, it will probably have a less large shown next year amongst the panelists. but truly it is an exceptional group of folks that we have here, true great leaders in government, people that i'm proud to have leading major pieces of our government. i'm looking for to hearing from them. will have cokie roberts leave

that conversation. she truly needs no introduction pictures public service in their veins, and the other thing i appreciate issues on our board of directors. so big round of applause for cokie roberts. [applause] >> thank you, max. welcome, everyone. it's very kind of some of you to come back because this is, this is really transparency at work of taking questions from your own employees, that's the hardest one. and then the press and other members of the public. i'm not going to do any inspection of these lovely people because you know who they are. they're all in your program and they are lined up conveniently in the order that they are income and your program. so you have secretary of housing and urban development, shaun donovan right here. secretary janet napolitano from homeland security, bob

perciasepe of the environmental protection agency, and dan tangherlini, the acting administrator of the general services administration. you might notice a certain ethnic summit in these names. italy is well represented here. [laughter] and i don't know, secretary donovan, if you can hold your own or not, we will see. [laughter] he says he speaks italian, right? but they are very impressive biographies are in your programs. i think we do have to start with sequestration. we are just stuck with it, and it is on everybody's mind, particularly of course your employees mind. but the publics mind, and as max implied, the faa situations that are definitely thinking about it and everybody, the airlines were very clever. i mean, i was in both national

and dulles, and you know, the airlines were screwing up and blaming it on the government and saying write your congressman. it was the biggest lobbying operation i have seen. people were ready. i was grateful. but each on one of you is dealig with this in some way or another. so why don't you, why don't you start, secretary napolitano, because you sort of get the borders, to put it mildly, at the forefront of what people are concerned about government and safety spink well, sequestration is really is the worst possible way to manage a government. i mean, we are constantly challenged to manage effectively and efficiently, but when you don't have budgets can when you don't have regular order, we don't know where the you're in continued resolution or a budget or shut down, then you're not have sequestration, oh, yeah, you're going to sequestration,

this is the baseline from which you are going to cut. know, this is the baseline. this is the baseline. so it really -- [inaudible] >> you. and it makes it very, very difficult. we have been focused on trying to manage sequestration to minimize the impact on a person of the we are very personal dependent, and trying to minimize the effects on furloughs and overtime and the like, but it does mean that it will increase over time. this is what will be difficult to shut down, the effects creep over time. so for example, summer travel season, we are not furloughing necessarily cbp officers. we hope we don't have to furlough them. but cbp s. customs and border protection. >> thank you speaks of the actually into into the united states have traveled, but on the

other hand, the ability to search for overtime for search overtime for the tsa during a busy travel season, that flexibility now is denied us. but it just has made it very, very difficult to manage in as effectively as i think all of us would like to. >> who else? secretary donovan? >> what i would add to that is, and you made this point, we notice the airlines. there are impacts that are being felt all across the country, and really they are growing over time. we have 200,000 pounds that are either going to end up out of homeless shelters, back out on the street, or families whose average income is not $10,000 a year who depend on section eight vouchers that are going to end up either at risk of

homelessness, doubled up on couches. and those kind of effects really don't get heard often times in the same way that perhaps a late shuttle from d.c. to new york does. and what it reminds me of is that something i think one of the first things i heard one or worked in d.c. the first time during the clinton administration, politics -- it's not enough for there to be a need, it has to actually be felt in the halls of congress, and more broadly across the country, if there's really going to be a political response. and i think we can talk until we are blue in the face as cabinet secretaries, or people inside the administration, but average people across the country to speak up about these things to really have a change be made. and it's the unfortunate reality that we live in, and but these impacts are real. they are happening and the question is, will we know enough about them, will we hear enough

about them to really make a difference in turning it around. because as janet said, this is no way to run a railroad. itself isn't spink but at least at hud ya homeless people you can point you. it would see epa is harder spent the sequestration is causing everything to slow down whether it is permits or inspections, all these things slow down across the government as somethings are more apparent as secretary donovan said that others. but the thing that is remarkable to me, no matter how much chaos this goes into normal order, the public servants are rising to the occasion and even when the tape is being cut. to make sure the minimal amount of work gets done. i think that is one of the more remarkable stories in this as well, is how they have risen to this challenge that has been thrown at them. >> mr. tangherlini, go ahead and spend i which is going to say that rising to the challenge is part of what we're trying to do with that tsa.

you have heard of these challenges are confronting in this era of sequestration. tsa exist to try to drive down cost to leverage the scale and scope of federal government, so we are mobilizing our efforts iran getting out to the agencies and trying to find ways that they can save money within their operations for freezing the footprint from collapsing and cordoning our fleet operations for leveraging the scale in terms of acquisitions. and using that to try to drive down the cost of government so that they can put more back and winning it the most. >> as you all well know, there's a lot of criticism that you are cutting and most obvious things, the things we can see and we can react to as voters. and if you just did a little smarter there must be somewhere, there must be some waste in your organization. somebody that could go and still keep the core mission

functioning. is that a fair criticism? >> no. [laughter] >> do you want to go first? >> no. >> the way sequestration was done was to go account by account by account by account. so unless you go back through the entire process and back to the congress and asked for something called a reprogramming, you don't have the kind of flexibility within your department to move things around. that's why the attack on the department of transportation was really unfair. it didn't recognize that the way sequestration was done did not provide flexibility unless you went back and asked for permission, could i rob peter to pay paul? which is essentialessential ly what you have to do. >> and this is what they did. >> yes. >> look, in an era where you

don'ten agreement, i went out with janet and our other colleagues hearing where lindsey graham at one point said to all of us, so what you're telling me is that sequestration is stupid? and we sort of look at each other, is this a trick question? [laughter] yeah, we agree, it's stupid. you couldn't design a worst way to reduce cost. and we've all, you know, we live in an era over the last years in difficult fiscal times but i just ask our employees will eventually. the point is that this is not the right way to do it, first of all. and second of all, there comes a point where even with flexibility you reach a place where you're going to have an impact on people's lives. and it is the nature of the

cynical times when living to have this become an issue of, well, you're doing this on purpose, right? one might ask as janet said, it's not like congress should be lecturing us on managing these days. but also this is something that we really need to make sure these impacts are understood by the american people. >> you talked about how you are impressed by how people are still working under the circumstances, working well under the circumstances. why there are concerned about is making the government come as mexicans the best they can be and that means having employees be in a position where they feel that they can be effective. so given this kind of stupidity come as you all have described it, how do you do that? >> well, people get into public service because they want to make a difference.

and what you have to emphasize, if you have a difficult time doing budget so that you can plan ahead and be innovative by setting the course for change that is based on a rational approach, as opposed to these episodic issues that we're dealing with, you have to motivate your workforce on mission. you have to motivate them on the surface that they're providing and a change that they can make in the world. and i think that is what we have to fall back on. that's always there, but it's very frustrating to the workforce to have to work toward those motivations at the same time planning to accomplish anything is disruptive constantly. >> and just come, basics like travel budgets and all of that, are those affecting the ability to get some work done? >> in our case what we have done is we have reduced the travel

for what you would normally call getting meetings that would be routine, and we focused it on field inspections. so we've moved our travel back to the most essential field inspection work so that we can provide that service to the public. >> secretary donovan, you know of course since coming off the economic crisis that there was a lot of upset with the federal government's role in housing, and the whole housing sector, being one that people came very suspicious of. how do you fix that and bring people back, especially in a time like this? >> well, this has had visited a challenge that goes well beyond just four years. this is something that will take through the second term and i

think beyond. and part of it is a fundamental debate i think we're having as a country about what is the right role of the federal government? how do we limit that role in the right way? and direct it where it is most needed. but i think part of the things we need to focus on is that frankly, with, whether it is housing or many other things, you have to look at how does housing support what we all can agree on is the right outcomes? and too often i think whether it is in housing or any other air in government we don't think enough about, for example, well, if a child doesn't have a decent place to live, how does that affect how they do in school? how does that affect their health? how does it affect all the other things that might reach out beyond the traditional folks that we might talk to or might care nearly about housing as an issue? and i think particularly in

these times, and this i think is something that the partnership has focused on, i think it's something we all as a federal government can do better, what does it actually mean when you make an investment, whether it's in housing or health or education, what does that also mean in terms of what we can save in the long-term? and really being able to look at, well, a child doesn't have a decent place to live, does that mean that they're going to lead to more slowly and not get a good job, not contagious outside in the long run? the more we can measure and understand those kind of impacts with something like housing has, the more think we can go and make the case to the american people. there's a reason why you as a taxpayer should care about this, even if don't care about housing per se. i think we all have to do a better job, certainly at time when we need to, to show why housing matters and not just because it means more economic

investment but it has a broader set of impacts on health, on education and other things as well. >> that question of metrics i think is how you measure is something that all of you have gotten much more involved in than was true even 10 years ago when homeland security first got started. mr. sanka van der weide, this id of what you do, right, is -- mr. tangherlini, how you can get a government operating the most efficiently, we can. >> in many ways that's the counterpoint to the whole issue of the sequestered, what we really should be doing is diving deep into these programs and asking ourselves what are we getting out for the dollar we put in. once inspected is respected and will need to do is develop a government that is driven by data rather than by anecdote. so that's the challenge we are all facing as we tried to deliver services demand for which is not going to pick it is actually going up. the resources we have to deliver

those services, if we're lucky they are staying flat. so we have to figure out how we can get more productivity and more outcomes for the resources that we put into them. that's what the expectation is. >> one of the things again that we do at the partnership is have these annual surveys of the best places to work. and i'm noticing your agencies have gone down slightly this year, and i seem that has something to do with the atmosphere of washington's uncertainty and all of that. but epa wins with -- [laughter] -- a score of almost 68%. so that's very good. and then i think it's homeland security comes in at almost 53%. how much do you use this

measurement in evaluating how, the job you're doing, you're department? >> we use it. we don't like the numbers we are getting, and dhs has historically ranked very, very low. i think part of that is the newness of the department. the fact that our employees often times i think he liked the work in a no win situation where what they prevent doesn't give public notice, but if something gets through, it gets a lot of notice, or if a mistake is made, it goes viral. and it turns out that we have to work on that part, but we've also discovered other things. like, for example, we've learned that when people were promoted

the first -- a lot of times they weren't trained on how to be a supervisor. so some of the discontent was how am i being evaluated by immediate supervisor. we can fix that, and we have now instituted kind of departmentwide a process in a class and something to do that. and we have an executive steering counsel on how to deal with employee satisfaction with our place as a place to work. and i am really committed to seeing if we can raise those numbers. and so i meet regularly with the component heads, cbp, that 60,000 employees. the tsa is another 50 some odd thousand of these are large components, larger than some agencies quite frankly. how can we improve individually each of them in terms of employee satisfaction. so if the question is do you pay attention to the survey, the answer is yes. is the question is are you happy with the survey? the answer is no, not at all.

and we shouldn't be. we have a challenge in front of us. >> to respond initially, it was designed, what it is exactly for. that's such an interesting point, somebody gets promoted to the job they don't have to do and then get evaluated poorly as a result of that. and then come and so -- >> that has devastating effects, exactly right. >> and when you get better grades, what's the response to that? >> well, we try to get as many people to produce that in as possible and i think that improves the accuracy of which are feeding in the workforce. we are pretty happy. we continue to rank highly in employee satisfaction. i note that we're in the top three of innovative agencies also in the survey that the partnership does, and think that sort of relates a little bit to the kind of nation we have at epa in trying to develop

strategies that can be innovative. so we are happy but as you noticed, okay, all the numbers have gone down a little bit. i think this is a good barometer for all of us to work on. but we also need to note that the brahma is going down across the board be much with a few minor exceptions. and i think that that is from some of things that max mentioned at the beginning it, the constant drumbeat that there's something wrong with public service and public servants. and nothing can be farther from the truth, how hard people work, answers to the american public. >> but it not a has a demoralizing effect on people who currently serve, that it seems to me it's likely to have a negative impact on recruitment it and again, particularly someplace like epa we need to get, you are competing for engineers and people in the stand, the science, technology,

engineering and math fields. where everybody is competing for those graduates out of college. college. >> they really are. we have over 5000 scientists at epa. it's one of our core capabilities that we have to maintain to make the right kinds of decisions for the public. and we have to -- we have fellowships in our laboratories. we are doing a number of things. we try to identify teachers who are innovative teachers who might be interested if we're trying to work closely with students, but we do have the nation to help attract and we have these programs to keep our face in front of people we want to attract. so we are working on that but it is challenging in the current environment. >> do you want to talk about recruitment? >> the interesting thing i've seen, and i follow the survey very, very closely, as my employees will tell you why we stopped about it as one of my most important report cards that

i get, whether i like the great or not, we're going to pay attention. >> fifty-four. [laughter] >> appreciate you reminding me. but i often find that the hardest part is not the recruitment peace, and i think particularly president obama, he said one of his jobs was to make public service cool again. if you look at surveys more broadly you see that there is a lot more interest than it was maybe 10 years ago or 20 years ago to get into public service. i think it's really how we as leaders keep those folks and build career paths that is so often the challenge. we find that where we make it, we had 100 presidential management fellows a couple years ago. it's our biggest class across the federal government. we went all out to recruit them. and what we found was the toughest part was how to make sure we continue to have the

right challenges, provide opportunities. so we started institute not only training but a rotation program to help them go out into the field and really understand the variety of things. but often i find that actually the biggest part, is how do you keep that idealism that brings people into public service allied? how to remind folks of why they came in the first place and what success looks like? >> after they have survived the hiring process which is the problem. [laughter] >> no question. >> i just want to add to what john said, i think the interesting thing, the scores and the impression of the scores are having less of an effect on entry-level recruitment. we still have many more people who want to come work for us than we have opportunity. it's in a mid-level retention and in the mid-and upper level recruitment. where people saying i'm just not sure i want to go and make all the sacrifices. and that's a hard apart if we're

going to continue to review and rejuvenate the leadership of our obsessions as well to keep those people going to a continued to grow, have the opportunity to get experiences. but then we also don't have renewal and rejuvenation across all levels. >> you talk about making sacrifices, and i'm going to open this up to questions in just a minute, but before i do that we said at the beginning that the team this week is why i served, and i'd like each of you to quickly tell us, because each of you has been a good deal of time in public service, much of their lives. so why are you serving? >> i grew up in the city at a time when homelessness was exploding, when we were wondering whether american cities would even survive. i was at the 1977 world series in the bronx when howard cosell

said to shaun, ladies and gentlemen, the bronx is burning. and i felt like having witnessed that, that the best way i could get back was by working in public service to try to end homelessness and to help cities come back. >> and you think there's been movement along those lines? >> well, if you go back to those famous streets in the south bronx today, in fact the street, charlotte street that president carter visited in 1977 and compared to dresden after world war ii, homes are selling for $400,000 on that block. and the south bronx has come back as an amazingly, still very poor, but amazingly vital community. and that kind of success story, it's not over, still walk the street in detroit and see the challenges. we still have too many homeless folks on the streets around the

country. but we have made real progress. and government isn't the only answer of why we need an -- progress but it is part of the answer spent much of minot the other world series in the bronx this year by fact spent top. >> very tough, wow. >> this is not cokie. >> the wife of a rabid yankees fan. spent actually you probably couldn't afford to buy that for her thousand dollars home. i served because i think the future can and should be better than the present, and i think working in the public service is the best way to help us do that. and i've done it when i was governor. i focus on education, and in my current role i've focus on security and immigration and the rule of law, but each of those are very different in the way but they do have that common united theme.

>> i think it's kind of simple for me trying to make a difference in the world, and it may seem idealistic but there's nothing wrong with idealism i think him and i started working in city government where, right up front and close and personal as they say when you're trying -- i did it with a neighbor probing the meetings at night and having that experience and working at the federal level, has been a remarkable blessing i've had. so i'm really in awe of the work that we do here. >> i wish i hadn't had to go last, but why i serve, i blame my parents. it's their fault. they raised my brothers and me, with a velocity that you have to leave a better world than the one we are brought into. and in trying to find a way to meet their high expectations for

all of us, i found the place where you could do that, we could have the most impact was in public service. why i continue to serve is actually a more interesting question at some level. the reason i continue to serve is because the incredible people i get to work with him doing it. the quality of these problems that we get to deal with in public service are so outstanding, incredible challenging and deeply frustrating. that keeps you coming back and coming back to the most importantly i continue to serve because i do want a family who supports me in doing this. >> that's great. i would like you all to stand up and ask questions. there are microphones there and there. and we do need you to go to the microphone because it is being recorded, so if you would please do that. and if you could tell us who you are, please, when you come to the microphone, and then if you want to direct your question to a particular member of the cluster's panel, please do so

otherwise we will just let them figure it out. -- a lustrous panel. >> i'm a barber with the faa, and you mentioned the stem program. i understand those who go to college with a stem major, about 40% change the nature during the first semester. and it seems to me now would be a very lucrative are very rewarding place if you actually do some mentoring, some guidance to individuals. do you have a program for that? >> does anybody have anything? >> in college? we haven't the go ambassador program at epa in some colleges, but i'm not sure that they are focused on keeping people in s.t.e.m. programs, i think the president has been pushing s.t.e.m. education pretty hard and we're hoping to continue to get people motivated for the needs that society has for people that are able to excel in those programs.

>> the president has been pushing it along with the department of education, and then several prominent people in the business community who have joined with the government, public-private partnership, to try to really emphasize those programs, particularly for girls. because of course girls are the majority in college, and the vast majority in graduate scho school. and so to not have them in the s.t.e.m. program is a real problem. >> [inaudible] >> we have a report on this very issue coming out may 16. how about that? [laughter] very good. okay, over here, please. >> josh with politico. this question is for secretary napolitano. earlier cokie for duty -- >> josh was one of my kids at abc. >> back in the day. [laughter] cokie referred to the situation that happened with a person that came in to a student visa but

apparently wasn't a student anymore. do you think that was a mistake? and i know you have made some changes. how do you tweak that without having a situation where, for example, every time university or college makes a paperwork mistake or checks the wrong box, a foreign student coming to the u.s. doesn't get held up for 24 or 72 hours locked up at one of our ports of entry? >> let me just come without talk about that particular incident per se, because obviously it's an open matter, but i will say we always learn from these events, right? you always learn. and of the things are now checking manually the most recent student these information because you're right, it changes all the time, students and drop, et cetera. with dozens information, which

is held in a different place. and for the time being that's actually being done manually, but we're trying to be sensitive of the fact that there's a lot of traffic back and forth. i think by the end of the month, certainly we probably will have a technological solution to this particular issue. but i wouldn't go so far as to characterize what happened in the light of boston in terms of materiality or anything of that nature. i think that has to have a more fulsome investigation spent but having a solution to that seems to me to be really tough. colleges don't have a crew what classes thei that kids are in fr weeks after the semester begins. >> that's right, and that's why, and quite frankly our country is enriched by students coming from abroad. the colleges are common.

>> guest-- we'reconstantly balar security needs and the need should be a culprit as possible, with the fact that, for example, traffic, travel across our land borders. people need to be able to come and go. so that appropriate balance is something that is constantly looked at throughout dhs, and as i said, you know, uniting various systems that are held in various different places. some of them are not, many of them are not even within dhs. they are in other places within the government. these are big technological challenges which is why we need more s.t.e.m. graduates. >> over here. >> yes. my name is doctor raymond marbury. i'm an employee of the department of homeland security,

customs and border protection. i would like to first thank madam secretary for service. she's done a great job. she communicates very well with the department. my question that i have is kind of three prongs, since we afford people, maybe one of you can address each one. i wrote an article this spring and tunnel connecting the dots between people, budgets and mission. so my questions relate directly to this article. how do we invest in less in terms of human capital? that's my first question. how do we extract and transfer knowledge from the baby boomers before they leave in 2068, this is a big one for me, and my third one is how to agencies leverage information management without money to reduce costs

and improve efficiency across the government? so those are my three questions. >> those are big questions, but if you want, i see mr. dingell being is aging to answer. >> we are doing something at gsa would love to work with other agencies -- mr. tangherlini, to build awareness. we are using an internal kind of social media type system to create linkages between peoples first up is to get people to kind of self-report what their skills and experience is our. we're using it to fuel ideas come and get ideas for how we could be a better service provider. we want something called the great ideas on. with a 600 great ideas but more important we get 20,000 comments where people are exchanging comments and views and perspectives on those ideas across the hierarchy. so we let people from any part of the opposition, none other parts of the organization. we think collaboration, cooperation, overcoming hierarchies, recognizing the

value of people's experience in finding ways to get them to share that experience is really going to be the key to how we address the fiscal constraints that we're going to be facing really for the foreseeable future. >> we at hud have an interesting challenge around this question of baby boomers because we were an agency that was founded in 1965, had a huge surge with all the urban challenges we had at that point of interns and others coming in. the current president at harvard was an intern at hud, and many, many other interesting people of god unto interest in cricket lots of those people stayed at the great careers. we have more retirement eligible employees than his share of our employees than any other agency across the federal government. and so this is a real challenge for us. one of the things we can do is also use social media. we built hud connect system, some typical facebook are hud, but it really has spawned all of

these interest groups where folks are sharing ideas, thoughts about the agency knowledge in ways that we could never create just by saying we're going to start a group for x. or four why. that's one, the other can we surge connect those employees are intentionally to our young to impose. we have in under five group. they have been, not, there not under five years old. they been at hud less than five years and we connected them with some of almost expensive managers of the agency and it's been a great thing both for the folks at been there 30, 40, 50 years, as well as for the job employees to get to what i said before, which is how do you build careers and really encourage folks to stay once they're already serving in public service. >> i think one of the ways you invest in your human capital, people, is to empower them, and

to solicit assistance from them in solving some of the challenges we have. so at dhs we form something called efficiency, review initiative. it was designed to be an employee driven mechanism by which we could identify costs we could afford, things that we didn't have to spend money on, processes that were overly redundant or cumbersome and the like. and i think conservatively we have saved the taxpayer well over $4 billion through that effort. and some of them are big issues like fleet management, and you can imagine in a department like ours what that looks like your that we do procurements and what are some of the steps in a particular, how we break some of that up, all the way down to what has to be a paper and what

doesn't. there are lots of things, little things that add up to big things and some very big things. and some others are underway, but it's really saying, look, our human capital is probably our greatest resource. we need to invite him and create a space where they can participate in the agency in a much more fundamental way. >> that satisfies to think that first of all, it does get the efficiency, and smartly, people have had experience. but also that engagement of the employees must make them feel valuable and someone that you pay attention to and, therefore, that helps put the whole question of retention and brown. >> i would hope so. and we find really some of the most valuable participants that are those 57 your employees, they've been around a while. they of our think about the next career step. this provides them a space to be creative and innovative, and

really help improve the agency. >> we are rolling out next week something we call skills marketplace, since we now have the social business oriented social media and many of our industries now, what we're trying to do is capitalize on that and have people have their skill sets on their but we are changing our h.r. policies on details. i call it like a micro-detail but if someone have a passion is what has a big heavy project summer and they're good entrepreneur as a manager, you can get resources from around agency. it makes people see the agency from other perspectives. be involved with other parts of the agency for a small amount of their time each year. that way they'll agency benefits on a more fungibility of the skill sets. we are really excited about getting this going. so i think you see a bunch of technology options here, and also i think more attuned, i

know i'm aging us a little bit, but some of the younger employees actually gravitate to these tools. >> go ahead. spent my name is ken boxer, i'm the founder of boxer advises. i began my great as a president for management intern back in the day, a little bit and. my question is secretary napolitano mentioned the focus on front-line supervisors. however, some of the data that i'm seeing talks about the importance of some of the leaders in engaging and retaining talent. so my question to all four of you is, what specific actions are you taking on a daily, weekly basis? basis? and what suggestions would you for other senior leaders in your agencies are in the public government that was well and send messages to the employees that they are really valued? >> i would say one of the first things, incredibly simple but

incredibly important, it's just communicate, communicate, communicate. i find -- >> [inaudible] >> one of the great things about the technology we live in, part of it is one of your comment on the road, go spend time with people. just that basic making sure you're spending time with employees and not just talking to them but listening to them, hearing what their ideas are about what's happening in agency. technology is an amazing thing. we netted a regular town hall that includes every field office around the country. wwe're unusual as an agency to two-thirds our staff out in the field across the country. for an agency 9000 people, about 80 field offices. so a very dispersed. technology isn't really important in terms of commuting. that process of listening to employees, taking questions

online, over and video teleconference, it's a very simple thing but it's amazing how much that means to be able to really understand what's going on. in my head and the other agency leadership but also to hear from employees as a. >> and 9000 people in the agency by satellite, how many people are in -- >> 240,000. so it's the third largest department. it's the largest reorganization of the federal government since dod was created. i do some the same things when i travel, i tried to go to an airport, go down to the border, go, you know, see some of the operations, talk to some of the asylum officers. it just depends on what we're doing. so there's that. i think one of the most important things, that senior leadership needs to do is have a clarity of vision. it's not just communicate are saying, hey, you're doing a great job. it's really saying this is where we're going and will have the

crisis or we will have the congressional hearing to deal with, or an immediate peace that is out there, whatever. there's always crisis du jour. but there needs to be i think a longer-term, a bigger vision and then communicating that so people understand their role and what it is that we want him to do. and that you're not only praising them for their efforts but holding them accountable for helping the patient be achieved. and i think good accountability also helps build good morale. >> so i would of soviet agreed with both of my colleagues, and i would add involving career senior leadership in the process of running the agency is an important motivator for the senior leaders and agency. they need to feel their part, their expertise is being embedded into the system, and they're able to make a difference, the same way that i want to make a difference, why i

am in public service. so we created processes to the executive management councils which are the career leadership and other tools which will go into detail here, but they key is bringing a senior career leadership into the decision-making processes is a final important aspect. >> the one thing i would add is just continually reinforcing and reiterating significance and importance and impact of our mission, and the work that we get to do. it's an honor. it's something that is incredibly motivating in and of itself. and the problem is, if you listen to the very negative rhetoric you can begin to believe it or internalized, or become a little more shy about saying that you're actually committing yourself to something bigger than yourself. you're committing yourself to some as big as your nation. you're committing yourself to incredibly important work. and i think people need to be

reminded of that from time to time. >> that is one of the reasons that we do the service america wars, which as max said were announced today. and you do have among you some winners. so secretary napolitano, you have michelle colby, vaccine department team. >> that is a big deal by the way. >> they develop a safer vaccine to protect america's livestock injured, so if you trick of course the economy would be devastated. and anybody who is in england during that period saw how awful it was. and you also have shaun mccain and the operation -- they rescued more than 160 victims of child pornography. as a mother, that is something. new forensic investigatory techniques to track down the

predators that abuse them, resulting over 50 arrests since 2010. so congratulations. and gsa, martha delivered a timely information on federal programs and services and engaged citizens with the government through the use of web portals of social media, crowd sourcing tools and powerful search engines. so congratulations to you. actually when you the story of the people who win these awards, they are really quite something. really they are goosebumps provoking. and i commend you to learn about them and to aspire to them. because it really is something. unless there's one more question we will adjourn this. okay, go ahead. >> i'll keep it brief. let me say thank you for what has been very inspiring for me. i start at the department of energy five years ago, i'm

caroline and i work in the policy and financial affairs office. there is something about the five years that you start thinking and especially my generation, my generation -- by an entire generation, it doesn't seem to be -- among my peers, this question of whether we should go to extremes in the private sector because there's this sense that that's where the top management comes in from. they hire from, that's experience that really counts for something. so i guess your views on that path speak with whether the people more attractive coming up to the ranks inside are more attractive went out and coming back? >> well, i'll answer the question because i don't work anywhere in my adult life other than government. i did work at burger king and at

a gas station but i don't think that counts as private sector experience. [laughter] and i think the reason why i started as a pmi, but -- but i think the trick is it's a big operation. there are many levels of government, and you can move around. in fact, we have some opportunities at gsa for you. [laughter] spent i'm getting around. i think the trick, is there someone to scratch the agency that experience but i think the best employees are the ones who do take command of the career and try to develop their experience to the fullest extent possible, but that can be done entirely within the four corners of the federal government, or go out and come back, you know, i think the trick is that we need a government that reflects the many, many different facets of the society in which we operate. so many people from all kinds of

experience. experience. >> i would agree. it's important that a mixed people in the agency's. and you can get experience both inside and outside the government. so i wouldn't shy away from -- i've worked in the private sector and in the nonprofit sector in addition to the government sector. so it's important to be open to different experiences. >> i don't think we would find -- it really depends on the position that we are looking to fill, whether we think the private sector experience would be relevant or more relevant than public sector experience. i do like the suggestion may, however, that these are big, there are many opportunities just within the federal government, not to mention of the different state levels. we do homeland security but we are in 75 countries, and we do a lot of international work.

because our work, think about, it is inherently international in scope. we work a lot in science and technology. we have a research and development basically director. that's for new vaccine comes from. and we have, at the components which are always doing major law-enforcement operations around the country, that's where the child exploitation work comes in. you know, you can have a variety of experiences, depending on what you're interested in, without staying in one narrow career path. >> having worked in the private sector, nonprofit, a little bit in academia as well, i do think those experiences are important. but as i said and to talk to somebody who's maybe at the point you are in your career, what i look for, in somebody's eyes, is how much does making a

difference matter? because if i go back, take my me spent in the city, i was housing commission in new york. i remember talking to folks have gone out and hav had been enormy successful. have become big real estate developers are bankers or others working in housing. and they would often say to me, you know the best job i ever had was that three years after college i worked for mayor lindsay, or whoever it might be in government. and still talk about it as if they missed it. and i think if you are somebody who has a passion to serve, if you are somebody who can frankly put up with where max started today, with being the butt of jokes that time, or even coming in, feeling like you are question as to why are you doing this, i wanted to make a difference. i was, i never thought working in government, and thank god my mentor came and worked in the

clinton administration and asked me to come down and work for him. it really is a calling i think. i studied architecture, and frank lloyd wright used to say about being in architecture, if you can do anything else you should. i used to laugh about that. [laughter] but what i quickly realized that working in government is that i couldn't do anything else. and to me that -- >> that doesn't mean you're incapable of it spent i literally wouldn't want to do anything else. because if you really want to serve, there are lots of great places to do it, private sector, nonprofit, government is a nice place. >> thank you all for your service, and thank you so much for being here today. it's really terrific. and did you at all state, please, while we let our guests leave, thank you. [applause] >> i will shake your right hand. and you.

>> thanks so much. >> well, thank you all very much. have a great public service recognition week. and we will see you next year. onkyo. [applause] ♪ [inaudible conversations] >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in for the day. this morning senators will debate the nomination for the chair of the privacy and civil liberties oversight board. a vote is scheduled for noon eastern today. after that they will break for

party lunches and they returned at 2:15 p.m. to start work on a water projects bill to undertake dozens of flood protection and water supply projects in harbors, river locks, dams and levees. now to live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. chaplain, dr. barry bl, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. lord, you are our king. the earth celebrates your majesty. send peace today to capitol hill so that we will stay calm in life's turbulence and live worthy of your goodness. as your presence is felt by our lawmakers today, unite them so

that they will be a force for good in our nation and world. may the thoughts they think and the words they speak be acceptable to you. lord, fill them with your wisdom so that their lives will be like trees planted by rivers of water that bring forth abundant fruit. we pray in your sacred name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for

all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., may 7, 2013. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable brian schatz, a senator from the state of hawaii, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks the senate will be in a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m. this morning with republicans controlling the first half, the majority controlling the final half. following that morning business the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of david medine. at noon there will be a vote on the confirmation of the nomination. the senate will recess from

12:30 to 2:15. at 2:15 the senate will be in consideration of the water resources development act. mr. president, this afternoon, as i've indicated, the senate will work on the bipartisan water resources development act which will provide water protection and other improvements to communities across the nation. the legislation has two able managers in chairman boxer and ranking member vitter. they each represent their caucuses extremely well. tkpwaoeufpb -- given them free rein tpo complete that bill and hope that will be done. this measure will protect jobs by investing in the critical water structure. it includes current reforms to the corps of engineers. i thank senators boxer and vitter for their diligent work on this important issue and look forward to their moving this bill through the senate. mr. president, i'm sure my colleagues are familiar with the old adage: be careful what you

wish for, because you may get it. for two years my republican colleagues have said they wish for a return to regular order. they asked for amendments. they got amendments. they asked for consideration of bills out of committees. they've gotten that. they asked, and then asked again for the senate to pass a budget resolution, even though we already had a budget law signed by president obama. well, they got what they wished. the dog finally caught the car. but it turns out republicans were more interested in demagoguery. by calling for regular order than actually operating under regular order. although the senate passed a budget resolution under regular order after scores of amendments, scores of votes, republicans now refuse to allow us to go to conference with our colleagues in the house of representatives. this is a new concept. for centuries, mr. president,

centuries, we've had regular order where if the house passes a bill, the senate passes a bill, and they're different, we sit down and talk, work out the differences. but not with this tea party-driven house and senate. no. they talk about regular order. they talk a good game. but when it comes to regular order, they don't want it. they shy away from it. they say, no, we don't want regular order. we don't want something that's been done in this country for centuries. why are they so afraid? why are the republicans so afraid? we all know finding common ground isn't easy. they have a program where they're asking for $92 billion more in cuts, domestic discretionary programs than we are. head start, that program -- tens

and thousands of boys on this program to allow them to get a head start. meals on wheels, millions of people being eliminated from that program. medical research. a senator i had a conversation with this morning has a rare -- she has a friend with a rare form of breast cancer. a program to help cure this terrible disease has been eliminated where she lives. we know that finding common ground won't be easy but it should be done. we should find common ground. we're not afraid to work a little hard to get this done. we're not afraid of transparency. let's sit down together and find out what -- how each stands. we've done our work over here. let's find out what the republicans really want to do. what we thaoed to let the american people -- what we need to let the american people know,

where we stand. that is why transparency is important. democrats and republicans will never ever find common ground if we never get to the negotiating table. so why don't my republican colleagues want to go to conference? last night the very junior senator from texas said republicans would agree to go to conference only if democrats first would give in to their demands. what were those demands? well, they want more job-killing budget cuts. they want to make sure that no millionaire ever is asked to contribute to the deficit reduction. that's what he asked. before we go to conference, we want to make sure that happens. he also said he wants to make sure -- remember this. we've been it there before. maybe the junior senator from texas doesn't remember but we remember. we remember the government being on the verge of losing its ability to be part of the world community by not paying its

debts. mr. president, rightfully or wrongfully, this country accumulates debts. raising the debt ceiling doesn't do away with those debts. they are still there. we have an obligation to pay the debts that are incurred by this country. my friend -- i'm sorry, the junior senator from texas said he wanted a guarantee that as a bargaining pawn that we would make sure that the debt ceiling would not be raised. or words to that effect, mr. president. we've been through that before. the president made it very clear he will not negotiate on this country paying its bills. so republicans refuse to go to conference unless democrats get into positions that were soundly rejected by the american people last november. soundly rejected here on the senate floor with the budget resolution we passed.

in other words, republicans refuse to play the game unless we let them win. mr. president, the rules are set. we know what the rules are. so let's get down and go for it with the rules. but they're not willing to do that. like schoolyard bullies, if the republicans can't win, they'll take the ball and go home. that's what we were told last night. this is a start but it is a nonstarter. what is the real reason republicans are shying away from the conference? speaker boehner said he would rather not subject his members to politically tough votes. now, that's probably very truthful. house republicans are afraid of a backlash from the radical tea party that controls what they do over there and has significant

sway in what happens over here. they are afraid from the backlash from the radical tea party if they even discuss a compromise with us, even if they agree to go to conference with us, they're afraid that will hurt them. partisan politics is no reason to shy away from bipartisan negotiations. republicans got what they asked for. they wanted regular order. they have regular order. now is the time to embrace regular order that they said they wanted. it's been going on here for centuries, mr. president. that's what they want; they should complete what they ask for. it's time to get away from the last-minute fix and short-term solutions. it's time to engage in meaningful negotiations and a responsible budget process.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: according to data just released by the labor department, retailers appear to be cutting worker hours at a rate unseen in more than 30 years.. "investors business daily" had this to say of the decline. here's what they said: "it doesn't appear related to the economy, which has been consistently mediocre. instead all evidence points to the coming launch of obamacare, which the retail industry has warned could cause just such a result." so this is just the latest in a string of bad news related to the rollout of obamacare, just latest reason the law needs to be repealed. what's more, businesses are being forced to cut workers'

hours at a time when so many americans -- nearly eight million last month, according to labor -- have already been squeezed into part-time positions they would prefer not to be in in the first place. many of these are americans who probably would much rather be working full time. yet, thanks to obamacare, many of them may be forced to work even less. but actually it gets worse. labor also reported that total benefits for employees in service operations actually declined last quarter. declined. that's the first such deterioration in more than a decade. some speculate this piece of bad news could be attributed to obamacare as well. all of this, bear in mind, for a law, the full brunt of which hasn't become to come on line yet. we're still months away from that, and yet stories like this seem to be piling up.

when it comes to the implementation of obamacare, i fear that some of the worst hit are likely to be the small businesses and the americans who work for them. these are the hometown companies that struggled so mightily just to keep their doors open throughout the obama economy, whose owners sacrificed so much in order to keep their families fed and their employees on the payroll. these businesses, they struggled against fierce economic headwinds and they actually survived. now will they be able to survive the next assault headed their way to absorb the blows of obamacare, blows thrown at them by their own government? at a time when they are already so vulnerable. well, if things keep as they are, it's hard to see how they will. just listen to this. last week a small business owner in the barbecue restaurant business testified at a field hearing of the house, education,

and workforce committee. the owner of that company said that it will cost his business up to $200,000 -- $200,000 -- to implement the obamacare mandate. $200,000 hit. and that company's projected profit for 2013? $240,000. incredible. absolutely incredible. it is not hard to see why the democratic chairman of the finance committee called this law a train wreck. not hard to see why democrats are airing their concerns about the law out in public. frankly, i wish they'd considered these consequences before, not after passing the law. it's not like republicans weren't warning about all of this. it's not like independent experts across the country weren't saying almost exactly the same thing we were saying. and it's not like common sense wouldn't simply dictate much of these outcomes either.

and i see that the president has decided to pivot once again to jobs. i can't count how many times he's done one of these pivots at this point, so i won't try. but i presume he'll jet off around the country to campaign-style rallies in order to bash congress and claim that none of this -- none of this -- is his fault. in the same vein we hear he is he's going to have an obamacare this fray day. i'd be willing to bet that he's not going to take responsibility there for obamacare's negative effects on our economy either or on so many american families and small businesses. it's about time he did, and he should use that event to do so. because he needs to be straight with the american people. he needs to prepare them for everything that's coming their way, the wage cuts, the lost jobs, the higher premiums, everything our country can expect as a result of obamacare.

that small business i mentioned earlier had this to say. "major companies i'm sure have legal advisors that will guide them through this legislation. small businesses such as ours must obtain as much available information as possible and do their best to live by the letter of the law. then because this act is complicated, hope and pray to not get penalized." now, mr. president, the law-abiding citizens of this country shouldn't have to pray for leniency from their own government. the last i checked, the government existed to help the public, not to antagonize it. look, after ramming the law through congress the way he did, ignoring the warnings that all these things would happen, ignoring the will of the american people, honesty and transparency is the very least he owes the american public at this point.

what he really needs to do actually is join with republicans in agreeing to repeal this job-killing law. he needs to acknowledge the need to scrap it and relays it with the -- and replace it with the types of commonsense laws that will lower costs because this law is not working. i think he already knows that. republicans certainly know it. and more and more democrats are coming around to that realization, too. so let's skip the visited campaign events and work to get something done for jobs and our economy. if president obama is willing to work with us, we're here and read to get to work. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: gored, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each and with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the republicans controlling the first half.

mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to speak up to 20 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: following the leader's comments about the hick -- about the health care law, i found it interesting to pick up "the new york times" and see the headline, "new worries for democrats on health law." in the very first sentence, it says, "democrats are worried that major snags will be exploited by republicans in next year's midterm elections." mr. president, i had say democrats ought to be worried about the fact that there are going to be major problems with this health care law, a health care law that was forced through the senate, forced through the house, at a time -- not listening to the american people. that's the concern the democrats ought to have because the american people's health is being jeopardized as a result of the law that we're facing. so i come to the floor today, mr. president, to talk a little about what we've learned about

the president's health care law, just over the last week, the week that we've been away traveling our states, visiting with people at home. it's been all over the headlines and it's also on the minds of the american people. certainly was in wyoming and as i talked to colleagues from around the country, they've heard a lot about this as they've traveled their home states. when we go back home to our states, a lot of senators hear from their constituents about highway worried they are about how this specific law is going to affect their care, jobs, and paychecks. it's what i heard last week. it's what i heard week after week after week. i practiced medicine for 25 years, mr. president, and i hear from patients who are worried about a new layer of washington bureaucrats who are going to be sitting now between them and their doctor. i hear from families who are worried that they won't be able to keep the insurance that they have now, even though the

president of the united states promised them that they would be able to keep the insurance that they have if they like it. i hear from employers who are worried that they won't be able to afford all of the law's new requirements. that's what people are telling me as i travel the state of wyoming. it's a interesting ... according to the newspaper "the hill" that came out last week, wednesday, may 1, i am not the only one. here is the headlinin headline e front page. paper. "botched obamacare tops dem fears for 2014." of course that's a reference to the 2014 elections. the article talks about how anxious a lot of washington democrats are about the law that they voted for. it talks about how, if the rest of the law' law's implementation doesn't go w well, that voters s will know exactly who to blame."

that's why you see candidates like the democrat running today in the special election in south carolina trying to distance herself from the health care law. how did she do it? let's just turn the tape back to last week's debate. in a congressional race, special election, south carolina -- here's what she had to say. "obamacare is extremely problematic. it is expensive. it is a $500 billion higher cost than we originally anticipated. it is cutting into medicare benefits. and it's having companies lay off their employees because they are worried about the cost of it. this is extremely problematic." mr. president, that is a democrat who said that running for congress just last week. the election is today. another democrat, the ranking member of the energy committee,

he had this to say. "there is a reason for very concerned about what's going to happen with young people." he said, "if their premiums shoot up, i can tell you this is going to wash into the united states senate in a hurry." well, i agree with the chairman of the senate energy committee. so what are the prospects for implementation? well, one of the key architects of the law, another democrat, said he sees -- quote -- "a huge train wreck coming down." that's what senator baucus said. and i think he's right. we are headed for a train wreck. that's what concerns the people that i talked to, all of those patients, employers, families, that i mentioned. so what does the president have to say about this? with he was asked about it the or day at a press conference. the president's answer went on for more than 1,000 words, but it came down one thing. he said, quote, "for the 85% to 90% of americans who already

have health insurance, this thing has already happened ... they don't have to woi worry abt anything else." can that rulely be what the president thinks? he even repeated the idea a couple of times. he said 90% of the americans don't have to worry. i would just say, with all due respect to the president, people are worried and they are reright to worry. there are many parts of this law that still have not already happened in spite of what the president says. those things are going to give the american people a lot more to worry about. in fact, "the washington post" fact checker looked into what the president said, what the president claimed during his news conference. he found that the president ignored the fact, completely ignored the fact that 10 million people face the prospect of losing their current health care. that's what the fact checker found.

he went on to cite, the fact checker that is from "the washington post," millions of people are going to be priced out of the insurance that they have now, insurance that works for them. that's because of all the expensive extras that the new government-approved insurance is going to have to cover, and also government-mandated. the "post" pointed out that even unions, which were big supporters of the law, have grown wary because it may drive up costs toker their health care plant 20 million people are covered by those plans that the unions are worried about. but "the washington post" fact checker also cited $1 trillion in tax increases in the law. that's going to hurt a lot more people. the medicare actuary predicts that 15% of hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health agencies could leave the medicare program by 2019. these are our seniors, these are

people that have continued to pay into the program and yet we see these other groups say, we've had enough. why? because to the cuts to the programs and the payments that the president is counting on under his health care plan. health insurance costs are continuing to go up, and that affects a lot of people, even though president obama says they have nothing to worry about. a leading democrat member of the senate was interviewed the other day on new york television, his home state, and he conceded the other day that the health care law is contributing to those cost increases. the president thinks it is mog to worry about. -- it is nothing to worry about. here's how "the new york times" summed up the president' presids attitude. "the health care law is working fine." "new york times" last week. "health care law is working fi

fine, become says in addressing criticism." working fine? tell that to the 22 million americans who can't find a job or who can't get full-time work that they want. tell this to th that to the bust have to cut back their workers' hours? why? because of the health care law. companies with more than 50 full-time employees have to provide expensive one-size-fits-all health insurance. so, you see, small businesses that have stopped hiring, they've stopped hiring, mr. president, so that they can stay below that number of employees. others are cutting full-time workers back to part-tomb status, scutting their shifts to less than 30 hours a week. look at latest jobs report that came out last fryer day. in april the number of people working part-time because their hours have been cut back or because they can't find a full-time job across the country, the number of those people increased by 278,000,

mr. president. the shift to more part-time workers also means that the average work week is getting shorter. in april it dropped again. that's not good for our economy, and it's not good for the workers. the statistics show we're going in the wrong direction. now, the anecdotal evidence is even worse. recently the regal movie theater chain sent letter to all of its colleagues saying that it would roll back shifts to keep nonsalaried workers below the 30-hour cutoff. the company explained it was forced to take this step -- quote -- "to comply with the affordable careage of" we're going to see more and more of this as employers start to figure out exactly how hard they're going to be hit by the expensive and burdensome health care law. hiring during the past four years under president obama has been weak and i.t. also been concentrated in nonsalary fields like retail. we saw more of this in the last

jobs report. nearly one out of every 1 jobs is now in food services and drinking places and these are exactly the kinds of businesses saying they'll have to limit hiring and they'll have to cut back shifts it less than 0 hours. -- to less than 30 hours. why? because of the health care law. otherwise they could go bankrupt trying to pay for expensive washington-mandated insurance, insurance much more than is actually needed by their workers but insurance that is mandated by the law. it's not just bars and restaurants. let's look at the city of long beach in california. "the los angeles times" reported that the city of long beach is limiting most of its 1,600 part-time employees to less than 27 hours a week, on average. the city stays if it doesn't cut -- the city says that this it doesn't cut the house, the new health care benefits would cut costs -- would cost up to $2 million more next year. the extra expense would trigger

layoffs and cutbacks in city services. well, now is may be that in the end not every one of those 1,600 people will have his or her hours cut. some of the city's part-time workers are probably already under 309-hour limit. but -- the 30-hour limit. but for everyone else there is the uncertainty of whether their hours will be cut and when. the uncertainty is part of what's causing employers to hesitate or to cut now because nobody knows how bad this train wreck will actually be. that's just one of the negative side effects of the president's health care law, but it's having ripple effects throughout our entire economy. we've seen wages continue to stagnate. we've seen an awful economic growth. the new numbers reason first-quarter g.d.p. growth came out a few days ago. they showed that the economy grew at an annual rate of just 2.5%. it's been nearly four years since the recession ended. we should have seen a much more

robust economic recovery by now. the economy can't grow until we can get americans back to work. and people can't get back to work if there aren't more jobs. and employers can't create enough jobs because of the health care law. now here's a third thing the president said. he said -- quote -- "even if you do everything perfectly, well, there will still be glitches and bumps. these aren't glitches. these are people's jobs. these are people's lives. this is the health care of the american people. for a lot of american families this isn't a train wreck. it has already gone off the rails. they are busy worried about what the health care law has already done. they know that this law and the uncertainty that it's created is an anchor on our economy. here's how "the chicago tribune"

tut putt it in an editorial the other day. they asked the question: glitches or train wreck? and then they said bet on the wreck. wur hurtling -- we're hurtling towards this massive restructuring of the health care insurance and no one is certain of what is going to happen. there will be massive consequences intended and unintended. the president says 90% of the american people have nothing to worry about from the american health care law. he doesn't get it. when i ask groups i meet with in wyoming, i hear nearly 100% of the people say they expect to pay more under the president's health care law, and the care they get, they expect lower quality, less available care as a result of the law. people are very concerned about what's going to happen, and they don't think it's going to be good for them or for their families. a new poll just came out from

the kaiser family foundation. it found that only 35% of americans have a favorable view of the president's health care law. it's less popular now than it was when it first passed. it's gone down actually eight percentage points since just last november's election. more and more people are realizing what's in this law and how it will hurt them personally, and they are not happy about it. for the president to say otherwise is absurd. he's either not paying attention to what the american people are trying to tell him or he is intentionally misrepresenting the facts. well, the health care law is headed for a train wreck. saying it's going fine is just the president's washington spin. the american people deserve better than that. they deserve for the president to tell them the truth. they deserve to hear from the president, to have him come clean on how much his health

care law is costing and how much damage it's doing to our economy. the american people deserve a vote in do think repeal this disastrous law, and until this law is repealed, we're going to continue to see weak economic growth and the american people are going to continue to pay the price. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: mr. president, i have nine unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. franken: thank you,

mr. president. mr. president, on march 19 of this year the minneapolis star tribune reported that minnesota's tribal school districts were making plans to cut the school year short, increase class sizes and let staff vacancies go unfilled. the white earth reservation is planning to consolidate its sixth, seventh and eighth grades into a single class starting in the fall. this is happening because of the sequester. on april 11, wdaz, channel 8 in grand forks, reported that special education programs in my state of minnesota were going to be hit by a $90 million cut. this is particularly painful in the crookson minnesota school district where 20% of students

benefit from special education programming. this is happening because of the sequester. on april 17, minnesota public radio reported that budget cuts were affecting our court system across the country, access to public defenders, a constitutionally guaranteed right, is becoming more difficult. this is happening because of the sequester. and it's not just happening in minnesota. it's happening around the country. to take just two examples from the many i could cite from every state in the nation, on march 13, the a.p. reported that in indiana head start program was forced to use a random drawing to determine which 36 children would be cut from their program. and on march 31 the "portland

press herald" in maine reported that a local meals on wheels program which had never before turned away a senior in need was now using a waiting list and reducing the number of meals delivered to existing participants. then on april 25, the senate passed a bill to allow the department of transportation to shift funds from one account to another. therefore, exempting d.o.t. from the strict across-the-board cuts mandated by the sequester. the funding shift was needed to prevent the furlough of air traffic controllers, which was beginning to cause a significant inconvenience to american travelers and could have had harmful effects on our economy. the house passed the bill the next day, and it has now been enacted into law.

i am pleased that american travelers were spared this inconvenience, but as the reports i just cited from minnesota and from elsewhere would suggest, there are a lot of people suffering needlessly because of the sequester, and a case-by-case approach isn't the right way to handle the effects of the sequester. the sequester in fact was designed to affect every government function equally with just a few exceptions, and the extreme across-the-board nature of these cuts is the very definition of a thoughtless approach to deficit reduction. the sequester was designed to be replaced. and that is what we must do. just as the sequester affects every government function

equally, our response to the sequester should be complete and inclusive, not piecemeal. we must replace the entire sequester with a mix of new revenues and smarter targeted cuts that do not inflict needless pain on those who can least bear it and that do no harm -- and that do not harm our ongoing fragile economic recovery. there are both moral and economic consequences of allowing the sequester to continue. as hubert humphrey said, the moral test of government is how the government treats those who are in the dawn of life: the children. those who are in the twilight of life: the elderly. those who are in the shadow of life: the sick, the needy, and

the handicapped. if we ignore the effects of sequester cuts on the voiceless and address only the sequester cuts that are most visible, then the form of longer lines at the airport, for example, we will have failed that moral test. in april i received a letter from a family service worker from head start -- with head start from anemia, minnesota. she wrote, "the families i work with have no idea what it means to have trillions of dollars cut from the budget. they are trying hard to keep $10 in their pockets or checkbook. these cuts will be particularly catastrophic to the poor children of families we serve. congress and the administration need to act quickly to restore fiscal stability and maintain funding for our at-risk

children. our nation's budget simply cannot be balanced on the backs of poor children." and here's a letter i received in march from a mother in hoffman, a rural community in west central minnesota. she wrote, "my heart was saddened today when i learned that due to a sequester my 4-year-old daughter's head start program was to end two weeks ahead of schedule, that two of her amazing teachers will be looking for work come april 30, and her head teacher will be having to take on a second yob to compensate s.a.r. -- second job to compensate for a pay cut she took to continue with the program. our head start program is amazing program. my daughter has benefited from this program in ways a mother can only dream of and only a classroom environment can

provide. the fear that it may be not there for her next year sickens me. we may not have the numbers that are looked at when these kinds of decisions are made, but our program is one of a kind with teachers that are so special, they deserve awards. my daughter wants them to come to her birthday party. the people making these decisions need to actually go to the classrooms, see what goes on, visit again and see the ditchedifference this program ad these women are making in these kids lives. the decision-makers need to see what it is they're choose 20g take away from these young people. i will be writing a letter to awful my local reps and i'm examine thed to -- and i'm committed to sending them letters once a week until my pleas are head and our government stops taking money

and the education that comes with it from our rural schools." that is a story from a mother based on her experience with her daughter. and economists agree. studies have demonstrated that high-quality early education programs can produce anywhere from $7 to $16 in benefits for every dollar of federal investment. this investment comes from a return -- a return on investment comes from the long-term savings associated with a quality recallly childhood education. a child who has a quality early childhood education is less likely to be? special ed -- to be in special

ed, less likely to be left back a grade, has better health outcomes, is less likely to get pregnant, the girls are less likely to get pregnant before they graduate high school, they're more likely to graduate high school, more likely to go to college, more likely to graduate from college, more likely to have a job, to have a better-paying job, to pay taxes on a job, and much, much less hikely to go to prison. if anything, if we care about our long -- the long-term sustainability of our debt, we should be putting more money into quality recallly childhood education, not election as we're doing because of the sequester.

here's a letter from columbia heights, minnesota. quote -- "as someone who has worked with seniors my entire career and now volunteers to deliver meals on wheels, i would encourage your support of this program and discourage cuts. this program one that allows seniors and disabled adults to remain in their home and still receive proper nutrition. for many, it is also the only contact they may have with someone during any given day. while providing a service, it also is a means to check in on these individuals and their well-being. by eliminating or making significant cuts to this program, we would be turning our backs on many of our citizens." i am sure that every member of the senate has received similar

letters, letters begging us to protect fund funding that assiss small children and the elderly in their communities. and it's not just head start and meals on wheels. it is so many critical programs. h.u.d. estimates that sequester cuts could result in over 100,000 formerly homeless people, including veterans, being removed from their housing and shelter programs, putting them back at risk for homelessness. usda estimates that it will result in 600,000 fewer participants in w.i.c., the nutrition program for mothers and their children. replacing the sequester is just the right thing to do. the sequester is a perfect example of the moral tests of government hubert humphrey talked about. and replacing it is the only

conceivable response to it that we can have as americans. but apart from failing to protect our most vulnerable, the sequester cuts also do direct harm to our economy and prevent us from making the critical investments in education, infrastructure, and innovation that have always been what's made america great and prosperous. as secretary arne duncan wrote in a letter to chairwoman barbara mikulski about the effects of the sequester, "education is the last place to be reducing our investment as the nation continues to climb out of the recent recession and to prepare all of its citizens to meet the challenges created by global economic competitiveness in the 21st century. indeed, irk i can assure that you our economic competitors are increasing, not decreasing, their investments in education,

and we can ill-afford to fall behind as a consequence unfortunate indiscriminate across-the-board cuts that would be required by sequestration." secretary duncan goes on to explain that sequester will create particular hardships for recipients of impact aid, which includes schools that serve native american students and children of military families. in addition to investing in education, we should be build being up and repairing our nation's infrastructure. cuts to economic -- the economic development administration will hinder the ability to leverage private-sector resources to support infrastructure projects that spur local job creation, likely resulting in 1,000 fewer jobs created nationwide much the department of interior was warned that the sequester will

delay high-priority dam safety modifications. final lurks america has always been at the edge of -- the cutting edge of global technologies, but the sequester cuts may change that. cuts to the national institute of standards and technology will force nist to end its work on the manufacturing extension partnership which helps small manufacturers innovate in their business practices and develop market growth at home and abroad. the bipartisan o department of s the operator of 10 world-class national laboratories that specialize in developing develog advanced commercial technologies. d.o.e.'s advanced research projects agency, darpa-e has achieved several remarkable makethroughs in years, doubling the energy density of lithium

batteries, increasing the capacity of high-powered tran scissors, engineering microbes that can turning oxygen and carbon dioxide into transportation fuel. sequester cuts will curb our progress toward a 21st century energy sector. not only does the sequester fail to invest in the things that make america great, that make america grow, the sequester is also costing the government more money for same product in the long run. there are certain weapons systems that d.o.d. knows it needs and will purchase in the future. however, because of sequestration, they have canceled the contract order for the time-being. as a result, the manufacturer has shut down that production line and possibly terminated

those jobs much those costs are passed one to us, the government, and to the american people. i urge my colleagues to rethink the current strategy of addressing the sequester crisis by crisis, whatever is on the front page of the news. it ultimately isn't equitable. it disadvantages our nation's most vulnerable, and it is harming our economy. in february, c.b.o.'s doug elmendorf testified that the effects of sequestration would reduce employment by 750,000 jobs this year. that is the opposite direction we need our job numbers to go during our economic recovery. and i have not even been able to touch on the risk the convince sequester poses to our military

readiness this my remarks here today. the bottom line is that we need to address every facet of the sequester together with a mix of new revenues and smarter targeted cuts. we should meet ever new high, visible consequence of the sequester with the same response. it is more evidence that we need to replace the entire sequester. democrats put forward a plan to do just that. it was a mix of new revenues and targeted cuts to replace the first year of sequestration, and it garnered a majority in the senate. but because a majority is not enough to pass legislation in today's senate, when the

minority chooses to obstruct, that plan failed to pass. what we have passed in the senate is a budget that proposes to replace the entire sequester in a balanced way that would also spare the most vulnerable pain and would protect our economic recovery and our economic future. that is the kind of approach we need to take. i hope that in the days ahead that we can begin a dialogue about fixing this problem so that kids in minnesota and kids in indiana and kids in the presiding officer'presiding offf hawaii, kids all around the country can return to head start, so that the seniors in

maine can get off the meals on wheels waiting list and so that minnesota's tribal school districts can finish out the school year, as scheduled. when you hear about the next highly visible problem that the sequester has caused, you should think about all the problems the sequester has caused. that is what i will be doing, and what it means is that we need to fix the problem in a comprehensive a understand balanced way. -- and balanced way. i stand ready to work with my colleagues to achieve that comprehensive balanced fix for the sequester. thank you, mr. president. and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

# #. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, privacy and civil liberties oversight board, david medine of maryland to be chairman and member. the presiding officer: under the previous order there will be one hour for debate equally divided in the usual form.

mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i oppose the nomination of david medine to be chairman of the privacy and civil liberties oversight board. mr. medine was nominated for this position during the last congress, and the judiciary committee, where i serve as the ranking member, held a hearing on his nomination april 2012. at that hearing i asked a number of questions about the various national security statutes that the board is tasked with overseeing. this included questions about the foreign intelligence surveillance act and the patriot act. specifically, i asked for his views on these laws.

unfortunately, the responses that i received failed to provide his views. very simply, when people are called for confirmation, they ought to answer our questions. he simply stated in answers to questions that he would balance the views of government against the board's mandate to review privacy. well, that's pretty commonsense. that's what every member of that board ought to do, but that doesn't answer the specific questions that i asked him. i also asked mr. medine about his views on the use of law enforcement versus military authorities for combatting terrorism. i was very disappointed that he failed to answer a basic yes-or-no question about the national security law, that question being -- quote -- "do you believe that we're engaged in a war on terrorism?"

end of quote. instead i didn't get a simple "yes" or "no" answer. he opted for a more limited answer that military power is permissible in appropriate cases. what does that have to do with the question "do you believe that we're engaged in a war on terrorism?" this technical answer gave me pause, especially in light of the continued threat that we face from international terrorist organizations. perhaps the most concerning response that he provided was another simple constitutional law question. i have to ask all board member nominees about the use or profiling based upon country of origin for immigration purposes.

the constitution provides broad discretion to the government for purposes of immigration. each year the government places quotas or caps on how many or what types of visas are allowed from a particular country. for example, if we face a threat from an unfriendly nation, it's important that we have the ability to limit immigration from that country. at the least, immigration and customs agents and consular offices should be able to make decisions of admissibility slowlily on country of origin -- admissibility solely on country of origin. i asked this same question to the other four current members of the board. it happens that two of these were democrats and two were republicans. and the other four members all answered the same way.

that foreign nationals do not have the same constitutional or statutory rights as citizens, and, therefore, u.s. officials should be able to use this as a factor in admissibility determinations. in contrast to the other four nominees, mr. medine argued that use of country of origin as a sole purpose was, in his words, inappropriate. specifically, mr. medine noted that it would be -- again he used that word "inappropriate" -- for the federal government to profile foreign nationals from high-risk countries based solely upon the country of origin. and if you're worried about terrorism, this ought to be a pretty troubling answer to you. as the other four nominees

noted, foreign nationals do not have the same constitutional or statutory rights as u.s. persons, and the government may then lawfully and appropriately use country of origin as a limiting factor for purposes of admission to our country. i think this is especially concerning given recent attacks in boston and the concerns surrounding holes in our immigration system related to student visa overstays. what if our government learns of a terrorist plot undertaken by individuals from a specific country? under the view advocated by mr. medine, excluding all individuals from that nation even for a defined period of time would be -- and these are the words he used -- "inappropriate." instead, under his view, even faced with this threat, it would

only justify -- and these are his words -- "heightened scrutiny of visitors from that country." when the individual was linked to other information about the plot. end the quote. this is a dangerous view of our government's authority to control admissions into the country. and this individual, in his position, will have some influence on that policy. terrorism is fresh on everybody's mind following the recent attacks in boston. but the need to remain vigilant against terrorist threats should not rise and fall based upon our proximity to that attack. the terrorist attacks on 9/11 changed the way our government views terrorism and those who want to kill americans. we're now nearly 12 years released from 9/11.

some may believe that we now have the means in place to restricting admission based only upon specific intelligence if applied. but that view is the type of thinking that allows us to let down our guard. those who seek to kill americans are not letting down their guard and are always looking for ways to attack americans and our way of life. we can see this with the new tactics that they use, such as the failed underwear bombing, the attempted times square bombing, and of course the reality of the recent attacks in boston. so you get down to a very commonsense bottom. it is in this lens that i view mr. medine's answers and why i oppose his nomination to the board overseeing critical

national security laws. while i agree that we should always work to ensure that intelligence information is utilized in a manner most likely to achieve the desired results, there are scenarios where we may need to block entry to all members of a certain country. for example, would mr. medine's view apply to war-time situations? would we have to admit those whose country was at war with the united states? i think his answer points to a dangerous world view that is out of touch with the threats that we face from global terrorist organizations that seek to kill americans. it is thinking that deviates from basic constitutional principles that our government was founded upon, namely, the ability to protect our citizens

by limiting entry into the country. this is a very serious matter given the board's oversight of national security laws. given these concerns, i join my colleagues in opposing mr. medine's nomination when the judiciary committee voted on him as recently as february. that party-line vote mirrored the same party-line vote from the previous congress, even though the committee now has different members. above all, i fear that a nomination that is as polarizing as this could cloud the legitimate work of the board. this board is tasked with reviewing some of the most sensitive national security matters that we face. if the board issues a partisan decision led by mr. medine,

there will be discredited because of these controversial fundamental beliefs that mr. medine holds. these national security issues are already polarizing. all you have to do is look back at the debates that we've had in the last ten years in congress on fisa and the patriot act. adding partisan fuel reports to that fire would only exacerbate these difficult matters. given these concerns, i oppose mr. medine's nomination and i urge my colleagues to do the same. a vote against this nominee is a vote to preserve the legitimate tools to help keep america safe. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: i ask further

proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: mr. president, i was deeply disturbed several weeks ago to learn of the white house'whitehouse's plan to stri2 billion -- billion dollar -- 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. mr. president, no one is more interested in ensuring the successful implementation of the health insurance exchanges than i am. i chair that committee, and i was working again with both senator kennedy and with 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. mr. president, i just made a slight error -- that's not billion. $332 million. $332 million that they took from the prevention fund. last year it was $5 billion. and i'll get to that in a moment. so, again -- and they're raiding this prevention fund -- not only is it a case of misplaced priorities shall it is frankly an outrageourageous tac on a fut is saving families 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 don't have a health care system in america; we have a sick care system. when you any it, i think about n you get sick, you can get pretty good care in america. we have the best surgeons and clinics. probably no better place to be to get cured. but what we're lousy at is keeping you healthy i in the fit place. 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 don't 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 -- that's part of the affordable care act -- is making it possible for us to make national investments in evidence-based programs that promote physical activity, improved nutrition, and reduce tobacco use. now, this is not the time to mention all of the many ways that this fund is already making americans healthier, but i with aens to mention just several -- but i want to mention just several 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 number-one cause of death for women in this country. some $4some 42 million americane

anything some form of health disease. 80% of heart disease, diabetes, and stroke could be prevented as a result of changes to smoking, nutrition, and physical activity alone. moreover, this investment by the prevention fund is also saving money. right now heart disease costs our nation about $440 billion a year. $440 a billion 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 six million kids living in the u.s. will ultimately die from smoking. this year the fund is supporting a second round of the campaign called "tips from a former smoker." last year's campaigning will

save $0 million annually bade on just the smokers who successfully quit in reaction to this 12-year ad campaign. these ads are extremely powerful and effective. within two days of the first ad appearing last year, the number of calls to our quit lines tripled -- tripled. so mark my words, these ads are going to save lives. the second phase of this ad campaign is expected to inspire half a million quit attempts and help at least 50,000 americans quit smoking forever. the prevention fund -- $90 million for the antitobacco education support campaigns, as i pointed out, over 6 million kids -- if we don't do something about it, 6 million kids today in america will die from smoking. now, let's talk about the

immunization program. the prevention fund is investing in immunization programs to protect kids, save billions of dollars in downstream costs. for every dollar spent on childhood immunizations, americans save $16 by ensuring -- by avoiding the cost 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 from immunization 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 pound-foolish budgeting. mr. president, investments aren't just at the national level. they're also at the community

level. the fund is helping states, stirks 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 to increase levels of student physical activity. students going to school. because of these improvements, the number of students who are walking to school has doubled. doubled. now only is this good for their health, it is expected to save the school system about $60,000 a year on bus costs. in florida, the school board of miami-dade county will soon implement athe play, eat, succeed project to fight obesity. 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 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 blackhawk 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. now, i mention all these to show that the prevention fund is not just some top-down from washington.

we are trying to encourage communities, cities, towns, counties and, yes, some states to do things 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. this is a big problem. a lot of kids in america can walk to school, but they don't have sidewalks. they don't have safe passages to school, so they take a bus. simple things like that they're done on the local level. when local levels 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. just sort of letting 1,000 flowers bloom, getting more ideas out there from people at the local level on what they can

do, how they can buy into this to have a good prevention wellness program on the local level. now, let's look at the return on investment. we always wonder about return on investment. -- for the kind of money that 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, programs like the national diabetes prevention program could prevent or delay nearly 885,000 cases of type 2 diabetes, saving 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 through lifestyle change programs right in our home communities. and given that in 2007 diabetes alone accounted for about $116 billion in direct medical costs, it's all the more critical that we continue to invest in proven programs like this. well, i wanted to just point out that for just these investments, for every dollar that we put in a childhood immunization series, it's been proven we save $16.50. yet, if i'm not mistaken, the white house is taking about $85 million out of this fund. penny wise, pound foolish. tobacco control programs, for every dollar we invest, we're saving $5. chronic stkaoegs -- disease

prevention every dollar we save $5.60. anyway you look at it, in all these programs, just the return alone, not mentioning the productivey 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. so the list goes on and on. the trust for america's health release add study showing a 5% reduction in the obesity rate could yield more than $600 billion in savings on health care costs over 20 years. again, this is the trust for america's health. a 5% reduction in the obesity rate -- 5% only could yield more than $600 billion in savings on health care costs over 20 years.

again, studies like this just confirm what common sense kind of tells us. your mother was right, prevention is the best medicine for our bodies and for our budgets alike. that's why nearly 800 organizations have spoken out against this -- against misguided efforts to slash or eliminate the prevention fund. mr. president, 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, who only four 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 four 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 just had a briefing from three highly acclaimed medical practitioners a couple of weeks ago, two or three weeks ago, pointed out that two-thirds of the money that we spend in medicare goes for treating chronic illnesses. two-thirds. so when we talk about the money we're spending on medicare and how do we control medicare costs, some people say, well, we've just got to make it tougher for people to get medicare or you've got to cut down on medicare. when the answer is staring us right straight in the face.

prevention, wellness programs now and 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 proven to work. so the prevention fund gives us an unprecedented opportunity to bend the cost curve by jump starting the transformation of america into a wellness society, a society that focuses on preventing disease, saving lives and saving money. so as i said, the fund is doing both. it's 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. now, mr. president, again, i just -- again, one more time, we know that prevention saves lives. cancer deaths, about 567,000 people die from cancer annually in the u.s.. 50% of those -- 50% is preventible. preventible. 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. and preventable diseases -- heart disease, diabetes and stroke, about 796,000 people die from heart disease, diabetes and stroke annually in the u.s.. 80% of those are preventable.

preventible. and yet we're going to cut money from the prevention fund. it just 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 administrator 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. so -- and i must say as the chairman of the committee and as the author of the prevention fund and the affordable care act, i was never notified of this. i was not consulted on this. no one was. it was just sort of signed away. i just -- 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 i think people put 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 this. i wanted to give people in the white house the chance to understand that their assault on the prevention fund is shortsighted and destructive and perhaps suggest other sources of funding for implementing and overseeing the marketplaces. last year the administration, as i said, approved a $5 billion -- and i am correct here, it was a $5 billion cut to the fund as part of the middle-class tax

bill. that was last year. and i thought that after that we had an agreement that that was not going to happen again. a clear-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. so 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. again i repeat, this is bad policy tkhoeuss. this choice to take money out of the prevention fund will have serious negative consequences for the future health of the american people. now, again, i don't know -- i'm unsure as to who is giving advice to the president on this. but i want to say, president obama, i think you're getting

bad advice, bad advice on this, on where the money is coming from and how it's affecting the prevention fund and that there are other sources of funding for the marketplace. other than the prevention fund. again i want to make it clear, i don't want to interfere with the important work of the centers for medicare and medicaid service. i also happen to believe that ms. tavenner is very well qualified and strongly qualified to be the next administrator, and i believe it is urgent to have an effective leader at the helm of c.m.s. as we enter a critical stage in implementing the affordable care act. accordingly, mr. president, i am removing my hold on her nomination. however, as i do so, i repeat, it is deeply dissing pointing and -- it is deeply disappointing and disturbing that the white house once again is raiding the prevention and

public health fund. and i would hope that ms. tavenner in her future role as the head of c.m.s. will understand that while she works for the president, that advice and consent from 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 of marketplaces and everything else. i hope that the administration will join with us in fighting for the prevention fund and in making smart evidence-based investments in prevention and wellness. this is what real health is

about. it's not about how you pay the bills. if all we're going to do in the affordable care act is jig tkpwel around on how we pay the bills, we're sunk. we're 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, in our communities, from the earliest moments of life for immunization programs to those who are elderly, who may have a chronic condition but who can control that at less cost and have healthier lives through good prevention and wellness programs. that's what true health reform is about. and it's our best bet for

creating a healthier and more prosperous nation. with that important end, the congress and white house should not be working as cot purposes. we should be working together. i say that we must rededicate ourselves to the great goal of creating a reformed health care system that focuses a major focus on prevention and wellness and does it not just for a few but for all americans. that's what the intention was of the public health fund. again, mr. president, again, as i say, i say this very clearly, i don't know who is advising the president on this but i think the president is getting bad advice. i understand the president has a lot on his plate, everything from syria to afghanistan to, well, a lot of stuff. i understand that. but i would hope that, again,

that those in the white house who are advising the president would take a closer look at this, find some way of replenishing that $332 million and hopefully making some ironclad agreements that they're not going to raid the fund again next year. i thought we had an agreement that last year was it. that was it. i thought we had an agreement. i was operating under that assumption. well, why don't we take more money out of the prevention fund next year too to meet some exigency that may come up? that's what's been wrong with our sick-care system in the past. we're 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. we keep paying the bills and

paying the bills. and like clueless do-dos, we wonder why health care costs are skyrocketing, because we don't focus on keeping people healthy in the first place. so i will move my hold on ms. tavenner. but i hope the administration will find a way to replenish that $32 millio 2 million this d really make a firm commitment to not raiding this fund in the future. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum quoruquorum call:

quorum call: