Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, yesterday, at the James Cancer Hospital at Ohio State University in Columbus, OH, our State capital, I announced legislation to eliminate needless barriers to cancer research. I was joined by Dr. William Carson, by Dr. James Thomas, by patients, and by nurses, who do the research and the clinical care for patients during these clinical trials. Many have worked on this issue with Congresswoman Deborah Pryce, a Congressional Republican. Merle Farnsworth, a lymphoma patient from Beverly, OH, shared an emotional story about cancer clinical trials meaning hope--and possibly a lifesaving cure--for him and millions of patients like him. The goal of both the House and Senate versions of this legislation is simple: to finally identify cures for this merciless killer. So many of us have been touched by cancer. We all know--all of us, I guess, in this room right now--someone with cancer and have lost someone to cancer or we know someone living with cancer. Focusing on cancer yesterday at James Cancer Hospital reminded me of what is at stake when we are fighting for broader access to health care. We are fighting to promote and enable early detection of childhood cancers, such as Hodgkin's Disease, leukemia, and bone cancer, and to ensure that every woman can receive mammograms and pap tests. We are fighting to diagnose cancers as soon as possible, which is the key to saving lives. We recognize everyone should be able to get these preventive measures, regardless of where they live or how much they earn. We recognize a woman with breast cancer without insurance is 40 percent more likely to die than a woman with breast cancer with insurance. We need a health care system that is affordable and inclusive, where insurance companies follow through on providing coverage to those who need it. No American should be driven into bankruptcy by a catastrophic illness such as cancer. And no one should be denied access to clinical trials because insurance companies all too often try to drop them from coverage. Last year, Sheryl Freeman, a retired schoolteacher, and her husband Craig from Dayton visited my office in Washington. Sheryl had multiple myeloma. Sheryl and Craig brought to my attention the problems they were having with their insurance company. Sheryl was a retired schoolteacher and was covered under Craig's insurance plan. Craig has been a Federal employee for 20 years. When Sheryl enrolled in a clinical trial to save her life, her insurance company would not cover the routine costs of her care. If she had not enrolled in the clinical trial, they would have covered the costs of her care. She enrolled in the clinical trial. The insurance company, for all intents and purposes, dropped her from providing routine care for her. In addition to her clinical trial in Columbus, Sheryl needed to visit her oncologist in Dayton, about 1 hour 45 minutes away, at least once a week for standard cancer monitoring, which included blood tests and scans. But her insurance company would not cover these services if she enrolled in a clinical trial. Sheryl wanted to take part in a clinical trial because she hoped it would help her, that it might save her life, give her more time, and further cancer research. But rather than devoting her energy toward combating cancer and participating in a clinical trial, Sheryl spent the last months of her life haggling with her insurance company. The delays and the denials from her insurance company probably affected her treatment and her survival. Sheryl died on December 9, 2007. The story could have ended differently. Sheryl and Craig should not have had to sacrifice their precious time together trying to get the care she deserved, the care she paid for when she signed up for health insurance. People invest in insurance when they are healthy so they have financial protection when they are sick. It is meant to cover the costs of unanticipated health care needs. Whether a coverage exclusion such as this one, which denies payment for unanticipated health care needs, is written into an insurance contract, it is still a scam. Unfortunately, Sheryl and Craig are not alone. This is happening across Ohio. It is happening in the Presiding Officer's State of New Jersey, and it is happening in all 50 States. Some 20 percent of cancer patients who attempt to enroll in a clinical trial face the same problem with their insurance companies. It is because of stories such as these I am introducing the Access to Cancer Clinical Trials Act this week. Similar legislation is on its way to getting passed in the Ohio State Legislature. The Governor plans to sign that bill immediately. My bill and Congresswoman Pryce's bill in the House ensures this protection nationally. The bill simply obligates health plans to pay for routine care costs when a cancer patient enrolls in a clinical trial, something, frankly, we should not have to tell the insurance companies to do. But when they drop coverage for people who signed up for a clinical trial, it is what we have to do. These are costs, as I said, that would normally be covered if a cancer patient were not participating in a clinical trial. The legislation is specific in its definition of routine care costs and follows the Medicare definition. The bill will ensure that cancer patients and their caregivers can use their valuable time together to fight the disease instead of the redtape of insurance companies. In order to fight cancer and make progress, we need to further scientific advancement, not create barriers for patients who want to participate in lifesaving research. I am grateful to Merle Farnsworth for yesterday so courageously and passionately sharing his story with us and the public. I am grateful to the nurses who do their clinical care and practice their research for these patients in these clinical trials. I am grateful to Sheryl and Craig for their courage in sharing their story. Their two children joined us yesterday in bringing this issue to my attention. Sheryl was already very sick when she visited Washington, DC, and I imagine it was not easy for her to be traveling, but she did. She saw how important this issue was. I will keep the Freemans in mind as I advocate to get this bill passed. I will work hard on this legislation so no one has to go through the kind of experience the Freemans had and the kind of experience Mr. Farnsworth had. Instead of fighting their cancer, too many Americans are forced to fight their insurance company in the late stages of their disease. That has to stop. That is why this legislation is so very important. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I can't quite believe what I just heard. Because Democrats in 2006 said we need a different energy policy than the White House, a President and Vice President who both come out of the oil industry, both top energy executives, where much of the funding for the President's party comes from the oil industry, and in 2006, the Democrats said the Congress betrayed the American people because they let the oil industry write the energy bill, now my friend from Florida is saying it is the Democrats' fault that gas prices are through the roof. One of the best friends of the President was the CEO of Enron, a major funder to the President, close friend of the President who had a personal nickname, and Enron had gamed the system through speculating and speculating. It cost consumers, especially on the west coast, hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars as people raked off profits from their speculating. We are seeing the same kinds of things. I don't know if they are the President's friends doing it anymore, but I know there are people who have gamed the system. That is the reason, with no major international incident in the last 2 years, no major outage of a refinery or fire of a refinery or pipeline disruption, that prices have spiked so much. It is clear that a Justice Department working for the President of the United States, that is not beholden to the oil industry, might actually take some action on price fixing and recommend an excess profits tax--all the kinds of things we could be doing in this body and that the executive could do. But in this body, we have seen filibusters. Every time we try to do something on oil prices, every time we try to do something on long-term alternative energy, the Republicans filibuster. They have filibustered more than 60 times. It is approaching 70. I am not sure of the number; it is hard to keep up. They have filibustered more times already in this congressional session than they did in any 2-year session in history by a lot, and they are continuing to do it. We would love to sit down with my friend on the other side of the aisle and work on real energy legislation and wean this body and wean the White House from their addiction to oil company campaign dollars, and help wean the American people from our addiction to foreign oil. We would love to work on that. I introduced legislation yesterday that will help to jump-start the green energy industry in this country. It is clear we need to do a lot of that. But the American public is tired of finger pointing. It is time this Congress did more on energy, and that the Republicans, instead of filibustering--there are 51 Democrats in this body; we need 60 votes to do anything because of the filibuster--instead of the Republicans holding together and blocking things, instead of filibustering, let us work together on energy issues and not have the oil companies dictate to this body, as they did for year after year after year. When I was in the House of Representatives, the oil companies dictated to the House of Representatives leadership, and everybody in those days in the majority party--which was the Republicans then--went along with their leaders on writing an energy bill that had $18 billion of subsidies and giveaways and tax breaks to the oil industry. Yet they are the most profitable industry in America year after year after year. Something gives there. It is time for something very different. I want to work together. The finger pointing should end. Let's sit down and do this right, but don't block us to do things that will help stabilize gas prices now and help to bring them down over the short and medium term and long term to come up with a real energy policy so we are not relying on--as my friend Senator Martinez said--not relying on Venezuela and Saudi Arabia and countries that are not so friendly to us.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, earlier this week, I spoke on the Senate floor about Cover the Uninsured Week and a bill I was introducing that would increase access to health coverage for small businesses and self- employed individuals--a group we all too often forget about around here. Today I am formally introducing the Small Business Empowerment Act. I wish to discuss this bill in a bit more depth. First, why is it necessary? It is necessary because 82 percent--82 percent--of the uninsured work for a living. They have jobs. The overwhelming majority work in small companies--companies with 2 people, 5 people, 20 people--or they are self-employed. In Ohio, my State--whether you are in Steubenville or Lima, whether you are in Kent or Chillicothe--99 percent of firms with more than 50 workers sponsor health insurance. So if you are at a relatively midsized or larger company, you have 50 or more workers, 99 percent of those firms offer some kind of fairly decent insurance for their employees. That is for companies above 50 employees. For companies under 50 employees, only 44 percent of those firms do. Many of them are self-employed. Many of them only have 5 or 10 or 15 employees. Small employers who do offer coverage--and most of them absolutely try to--I have talked to small businesspeople from Springfield to Zanesville, from Bellaire to Delphos, and I hear repeatedly from small businesses they want to insure their employees, but it is getting harder and harder and harder. According to the well- respected RAND Corporation--a nonpartisan group that dispassionately analyzes these kinds of things--small businesses saw the economic burden of health insurance rise by 30 percent between 2000 and 2005. And it is getting worse. The situation is even worse for the self-employed, who must contend with staggeringly high premiums for individual coverage--they don't get any group-rate break--if they can find an insurer even willing to cover them. In these small pools, if you have 3 employees or 8 employees or you are self-employed, and there is anybody in this small pool of 1 or 20 who has some major preexisting condition, you probably cannot get insurance at all. In the meantime, health insurers have been living large, their profits increasing by more than a third over the last 5 years--not much different from the oil industry, where the public recoils from staggeringly high gas prices, and the oil industry is making record high profits. The public--particularly small business--is recoiling from higher health insurance premiums and higher copays and deductibles. Yet health insurance companies are doing better and better. Middle-class families are shouldering the burden of skyrocketing gas prices and ballooning food prices, even as the equity in their homes erodes and the cost of putting their children through college explodes. It would be ideal if they could afford to pay a king's ransom for health insurance. They cannot. And they should not have to. With those realities staring us in the face, inaction from this body is the same as indifference. My legislation attacks the issue of health coverage access from several different directions. To ensure widespread access, the bill would establish a national insurance pool modeled after the successful Federal Employees Health Benefits program. The FEHB, Federal Employees Health Benefits program, which enables enrollees to choose from a variety of health plans, with rates and benefits negotiated by the Federal Office of Personnel Management, has served Members of Congress and hundreds of thousands of Federal employees well for many years now. So understand, there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Federal employees--whether they work in the Celebrezze Building in Cleveland, whether they work in the Office of Management and Budget in Washington, whether they work in Bethesda for the National Institutes of Health, whether they work at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base; any of these Federal jobs--Federal employees are in a huge pool that negotiates price. So it obviously works in a way that keeps rates in check. Under my bill, an independent contractor would manage a program that looks like FEHB, with a few modifications to accommodate the market segment it would serve. A few of those modifications are designed to hold down costs. The bill would establish a reinsurance program to pay claims that fall between $5,000 and $75,000. That is where small business gets hit the hardest. When 1 or 2 or 3 employees, in a company of 50 or 40 or 30 or 100, get hit with a huge bill of hundreds of thousands of dollars, it affects the entire pool, and it affects everyone's premium and, in many cases, it makes insurance for the small business employer simply out of reach. This bill establishes a reinsurance program to pay claims that fall between $5,000 and $75,000. This approach minimizes premium spikes and it makes coverage affordable for companies regardless of the age and the health of their employees. The bill establishes what is called a loss-ratio standard for insurers. This means that insurers would be required to spend most of their premium income on claims, and hold down their administrative costs. We know what happens with small employers: the administrative costs the insurance companies take are typically huge and have a major impact on the per-employee cost of health insurance. The bill would identify and apply strategies to ensure that providers employ ``best practices'' in health care, which means they are providing the right care at the right time in the right amount. Finally, the bill would target price gouging by drug manufacturers and manufacturers of other medical products, including medical devices. Price gouging occurs in U.S. health care when a company exploits American consumers by charging them dramatically higher prices than consumers in other wealthy nations. Why are we paying so much more for prescription drugs in this country than the Canadians pay, when the Canadians often are buying drugs manufactured in the United States? It is the same drug, same brand name, same packaging, same dosage. Yet they are paying in Canada sometimes half as much. In fact, for years, I used to take--when I was in the House of Representatives--busloads of constituents to Canada, about 2, 2\1/2\ hours away from Lorain, OH, where I lived, to buy prescription drugs at a pharmacy in Ontario. The same drug, same dosage--everything was the same, except for the price. Other modifications in the bill are designed to ensure that health coverage is nondiscriminatory. Think about it this way: If your next- door neighbor develops a mental illness such as clinical depression, and you develop a medical illness such as heart disease, why should your next-door neighbor be denied health benefits that you get because that is a mental illness versus a physical illness? We both have paid premiums. Your next-door neighbor and you have both paid premiums to cover your health care costs. You both need health care. Why is one condition--the condition of heart disease--more worthy of coverage than the condition of clinical depression? My bill charges a group representing providers, businesses, consumers, economists, and health policy experts with rethinking health care coverage to eliminate arbitrary differences in the coverage of equally disruptive, disabling, or dangerous health conditions. The bottom line is this: We have an opportunity to expand access to health coverage in a way that achieves fundamental goals. One, we reach populations who cannot find a home in the current insurance system because they are small businesses, typically, or self employed. We stand up for American consumers who are paying absolutely ridiculous prices in many cases for essential health care. We demand spending discipline on the part of insurers. They have chosen to play a pivotal role in the health of our Nation. They can live with reasonable limits on their administrative costs, as their profits go up and their executive salaries are in the stratosphere. We can clean up duplication and random variation in the delivery of health care services. We can end arbitrary coverage rules that turn health protection into a health care crapshoot. For the sake of small employers, for the sake of their employees, for the sake of self-employed entrepreneurs--whom we need so desperately in this country to compete globally--and for the sake of every American who did not request, did not sign up for a particular health problem, and should not be penalized for having it, I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will support my legislation. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 715, S. Res 511.

Mr. BROWN

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

Mr. BROWN. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the adjournment of the Senate, the majority leader be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of the majority leader.

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

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, Thursday, May 1; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, there then be a period of morning business for up to 1 hour with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the second half; and following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 2881, the FAA reauthorization bill.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the substitute be agreed to; the bill as amended, be read a third time; the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate; and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 723, S. 1760.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, earlier this week, I spoke on the Senate floor about Cover the Uninsured Week and a bill I was introducing that would increase access to health coverage for small businesses and self- employed individuals. I will formally introduce the Small Business Empowerment Act today, and I would like to discuss the bill in a bit more depth. First, why is it necessary? It is necessary because 82 percent of the uninsured are workers, and the overwhelming majority work in small firms. In Ohio, 99 percent of firms with more than 50 workers sponsor health coverage. About 44 percent of firms with less than 50 do. And small employers that do offer coverage are struggling under the weight of it. According to the well-respected Rand Corporation, small businesses saw the economic burden of health insurance rise by 30 percent between 2000 and 2005. The situation is even worse for the self-employed, who must contend with staggeringly high premiums for individual coverage, if, that is, they can find an insurer willing to cover them. In the meantime, health insurers have been living large, their profits increasing by more than a third over the last 5 years. That's not revenue, it's profits. Middle class families are shouldering the burden of skyrocketing gas prices and ballooning food prices, even as the equity in their homes erodes and the cost of putting their children through college explodes. It would be ideal if they could also afford to pay a king's ransom for health insurance. They can't. They shouldn't have to. With those realities staring us in the face, inaction is the same as indifference. My legislation attacks the issue of health coverage access from several directions. To ensure widespread access, the bill would establish a national insurance pool modeled after the successful Federal Employees Health Benefits program. FEHB, which enables enrollees to choose from a variety of health plans whose rates and benefits are negotiated by the federal Office of Personnel Management, has served members of Congress and federal employees well for many years now. Under my bill, an independent contractor would manage a program that looks like FEHB, with a few modifications to accommodate the market segment it would serve. A few of those modifications are designed to hold down costs: The bill would establish a reinsurance program to pay claims that fall between $5,000 and $75,000. This approach minimizes premium spikes and makes coverage affordable for companies regardless of the age and health of their employees. The bill would also establish what is called a ``loss-ratio'' standard for insurers. Basically this means that insurers would be required to spend most of their premium income on claims, and hold down their administrative costs. And the bill would identify and apply strategies to ensure that providers employ ``best practices'' in health care, which means that they are providing the right care in the right amounts. Finally, the bill would target ``price-gouging'' by drug manufacturers and other manufacturers of medical products. Price gouging occurs in U.S. health care when a company exploits American consumers by charging them dramatically higher prices than consumers in other wealthy nations. Other modifications are designed to ensure that health coverage is non-discriminatory. Think about it: If you develop a mental illness like clinical depression and I develop a medical illness like heart disease, why should you be denied health benefits while I receive them? We both have paid premiums to cover health care costs and we both need health care. Why is my condition more worthy of coverage than yours? My bill charges a group representing providers, businesses, consumers, economists, and health policy experts with rethinking health care coverage to eliminate arbitrary differences in the coverage of equally disruptive, disabling, or dangerous health conditions. The bottom-line is this. We have an opportunity to expand access to health coverage in a way that advances fundamental goals: We can reach populations who can't find a home in the current insurance system. We stand up for American consumers who are paying ridiculous prices for essential health care. We can demand spending discipline on the part of insurers--they have chosen to play a pivotal role in the health of our nation; they can live with reasonable limits on their administrative costs. We can clean up duplication and random variation in the delivery of health care services; and we can end arbitrary coverage rules that turn health protection into a health care crapshoot. For the sake of small employers and their employees, for the sake of self-employed entrepreneurs, and for the sake of every American who didn't request a particular health problem and shouldn't be penalized for having it, I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will support my bill.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, energy independence is no longer an option for our Nation. It is an imperative. The clock is ticking. If we do not break the ties, our children and grandchildren will have to clean up our mess. It is not too late. Today I introduced legislation to help U.S. companies and U.S. workers chart a new course. This is an energy bill. It is a jobs bill. It is an environment bill. It will help companies turn green energy research into green energy products. It will help workers build careers around green energy development and production. It will help our Nation break free of foreign oil and grow our economy by growing green energy. It is an important step that, along with comprehensive climate change legislation, will put our country on a path to energy independence. While the first oil well in the United States was in the Presiding Officer's State of Pennsylvania, just a year later oil was being produced in Ohio. Before long, derricks dotted the landscape in every corner of our State. My bill begins to address what Ohio and Pennsylvania have known for years about energy. The history of my State is also rich in coal. Frontiersmen discovered large deposits of coal in Tuscarawas County in the mid-1700s, long before Ohio became a State. Today, coal power is more than 90 percent of Ohio's electricity production. Oil and coal powered this Nation through two World Wars. They helped the United States win the Cold War. And they made America the world's largest economy. But today our economic future depends on our ability to move toward alternative energy development. Green energy just will not restore our energy independence, it will secure our global leadership. In my 15 months in the Senate, I have held nearly 100 roundtables across Ohio learning about Ohio's capabilities and potential in leading the way in the alternative energy industry. From Ralph Dahl's farm in northwest Montgomery County and the technology he has employed, to high-tech companies in Cleveland looking for financing but fearing the so-called valley of death, to eager entrepreneurs in Athens who are installing solar panels and wind turbines all over their part of the State, to the work of Stark State on fuel cells. But we haven't gone nearly far enough. It is only the beginning. The Germans have long supported the development of solar power, and today they lead the world in that technology. Just last week, China announced plans to set up trade protection laws, not to increase wind energy in China but to corner the market on wind-energy-related products. While we are debating whether to punch more holes in the ground to drill for oil, the rest of the world is about to pass us by. But it is not too late. American ingenuity and innovation can and will give our Nation an edge over the competition. My bill creates an investment corporation for that purpose lead by the best and brightest from the business, labor, and environmental worlds. It will be charged with supporting the development and commercialization of new energy products. Great ideas are being left on the drawing board these days or, worse yet, getting produced overseas. Investments will be aimed with this legislation at communities with high levels of unemployment, with excess manufacturing capacity, and with brownfield industrial cleanup sites--communities with enormous potential and significant needs. My State, as is Pennsylvania, is dotted with dozens of those communities. Our green energy manufacturing future should build on our great manufacturing past, revitalizing flagging industries, and reenergizing manufacturing hubs. This bill creates the Green Redevelopment Opportunity and Workforce Program that provides grants to companies a little further from commercialization than those that receive loans in the Green Markets Program. These companies have green energy ideas that are a few years away from the market. Without these grants, they would never make it into production. We cannot pick, and we should not pick, winners in the fight for the future of green energy, so we must explore as many ideas and inventions that get to the market as possible. My bill would also establish grant money for pilot programs for green energy communities, colleges, and National Guard bases even. These pilot programs will serve as important resources for business interested in commercializing green technologies, as well as models for other communities that are trying to transition their economies to green energy. The corporation will run a green energy internship and apprenticeship program that will help innovate green energy companies, hire new talent, and help students earn valuable industry experience in this new industry as it begins to take off. My bill establishes a Green Energy Efficiency Grant Program that is a dollar-for-dollar match for energy producers, including municipal power companies and rural electric co-ops. This provision helps by ending the conflict that energy producers often face with protecting the environment and growing their businesses. These energy producers try to encourage people to conserve, but at the same time they are saying don't buy our product, which obviously is not a good business decision. This provision in this legislation will help answer that. By meeting these companies halfway, by matching their investment in energy efficiency, the Government cannot do it all, but it can help these responsible companies do right by the consumers and the environment. Today, most of Ohio's oil wells are dry, coal production is literally only half what it was in 1970, and Ohio's manufacturing centers from Steubenville to Lima, from Ravenna to Springfield, from Xenia to Findlay, are struggling to remain competitive. Our Nation's green future is more than using green energy or living in green houses or putting in green light bulbs. All those things are good, but we must build the green energy and its components in the United States. We know green energy is inevitable, but importing green energy from China and Germany, like we do today with oil from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, need not be inevitable, and it is not in our Nation's best interests. We need to end our foreign energy dependence, whether it is today, too much with Saudi Arabia, or in the future, too much with Germany. The next green energy company that can change the world is out there waiting to happen. It could be the National Composite Center in Dayton, could be the cutting-edge fuel cell research ongoing in Mount Vernon, OH. We can do this. If we do this right, if we wean ourselves from foreign oil, we can create good-paying jobs right here at home in the United States of America.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, earlier this week, I spoke on the Senate floor about Cover the Uninsured Week and a bill I was introducing that would increase access to health coverage for small businesses and self- employed individuals. I will formally introduce the Small Business Empowerment Act today, and I would like to discuss the bill in a bit more depth. First, why is it necessary? It is necessary because 82 percent of the uninsured are workers, and the overwhelming majority work in small firms. In Ohio, 99 percent of firms with more than 50 workers sponsor health coverage. About 44 percent of firms with less than 50 do. And small employers that do offer coverage are struggling under the weight of it. According to the well-respected Rand Corporation, small businesses saw the economic burden of health insurance rise by 30 percent between 2000 and 2005. The situation is even worse for the self-employed, who must contend with staggeringly high premiums for individual coverage, if, that is, they can find an insurer willing to cover them. In the meantime, health insurers have been living large, their profits increasing by more than a third over the last 5 years. That's not revenue, it's profits. Middle class families are shouldering the burden of skyrocketing gas prices and ballooning food prices, even as the equity in their homes erodes and the cost of putting their children through college explodes. It would be ideal if they could also afford to pay a king's ransom for health insurance. They can't. They shouldn't have to. With those realities staring us in the face, inaction is the same as indifference. My legislation attacks the issue of health coverage access from several directions. To ensure widespread access, the bill would establish a national insurance pool modeled after the successful Federal Employees Health Benefits program. FEHB, which enables enrollees to choose from a variety of health plans whose rates and benefits are negotiated by the federal Office of Personnel Management, has served members of Congress and federal employees well for many years now. Under my bill, an independent contractor would manage a program that looks like FEHB, with a few modifications to accommodate the market segment it would serve. A few of those modifications are designed to hold down costs: The bill would establish a reinsurance program to pay claims that fall between $5,000 and $75,000. This approach minimizes premium spikes and makes coverage affordable for companies regardless of the age and health of their employees. The bill would also establish what is called a ``loss-ratio'' standard for insurers. Basically this means that insurers would be required to spend most of their premium income on claims, and hold down their administrative costs. And the bill would identify and apply strategies to ensure that providers employ ``best practices'' in health care, which means that they are providing the right care in the right amounts. Finally, the bill would target ``price-gouging'' by drug manufacturers and other manufacturers of medical products. Price gouging occurs in U.S. health care when a company exploits American consumers by charging them dramatically higher prices than consumers in other wealthy nations. Other modifications are designed to ensure that health coverage is non-discriminatory. Think about it: If you develop a mental illness like clinical depression and I develop a medical illness like heart disease, why should you be denied health benefits while I receive them? We both have paid premiums to cover health care costs and we both need health care. Why is my condition more worthy of coverage than yours? My bill charges a group representing providers, businesses, consumers, economists, and health policy experts with rethinking health care coverage to eliminate arbitrary differences in the coverage of equally disruptive, disabling, or dangerous health conditions. The bottom-line is this. We have an opportunity to expand access to health coverage in a way that advances fundamental goals: We can reach populations who can't find a home in the current insurance system. We stand up for American consumers who are paying ridiculous prices for essential health care. We can demand spending discipline on the part of insurers--they have chosen to play a pivotal role in the health of our nation; they can live with reasonable limits on their administrative costs. We can clean up duplication and random variation in the delivery of health care services; and we can end arbitrary coverage rules that turn health protection into a health care crapshoot. For the sake of small employers and their employees, for the sake of self-employed entrepreneurs, and for the sake of every American who didn't request a particular health problem and shouldn't be penalized for having it, I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will support my bill.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, energy independence is no longer an option for our Nation. It is an imperative. The clock is ticking. If we do not break the ties, our children and grandchildren will have to clean up our mess. It is not too late. Today I introduced legislation to help U.S. companies and U.S. workers chart a new course. This is an energy bill. It is a jobs bill. It is an environment bill. It will help companies turn green energy research into green energy products. It will help workers build careers around green energy development and production. It will help our Nation break free of foreign oil and grow our economy by growing green energy. It is an important step that, along with comprehensive climate change legislation, will put our country on a path to energy independence. While the first oil well in the United States was in the Presiding Officer's State of Pennsylvania, just a year later oil was being produced in Ohio. Before long, derricks dotted the landscape in every corner of our State. My bill begins to address what Ohio and Pennsylvania have known for years about energy. The history of my State is also rich in coal. Frontiersmen discovered large deposits of coal in Tuscarawas County in the mid-1700s, long before Ohio became a State. Today, coal power is more than 90 percent of Ohio's electricity production. Oil and coal powered this Nation through two World Wars. They helped the United States win the Cold War. And they made America the world's largest economy. But today our economic future depends on our ability to move toward alternative energy development. Green energy just will not restore our energy independence, it will secure our global leadership. In my 15 months in the Senate, I have held nearly 100 roundtables across Ohio learning about Ohio's capabilities and potential in leading the way in the alternative energy industry. From Ralph Dahl's farm in northwest Montgomery County and the technology he has employed, to high-tech companies in Cleveland looking for financing but fearing the so-called valley of death, to eager entrepreneurs in Athens who are installing solar panels and wind turbines all over their part of the State, to the work of Stark State on fuel cells. But we haven't gone nearly far enough. It is only the beginning. The Germans have long supported the development of solar power, and today they lead the world in that technology. Just last week, China announced plans to set up trade protection laws, not to increase wind energy in China but to corner the market on wind-energy-related products. While we are debating whether to punch more holes in the ground to drill for oil, the rest of the world is about to pass us by. But it is not too late. American ingenuity and innovation can and will give our Nation an edge over the competition. My bill creates an investment corporation for that purpose lead by the best and brightest from the business, labor, and environmental worlds. It will be charged with supporting the development and commercialization of new energy products. Great ideas are being left on the drawing board these days or, worse yet, getting produced overseas. Investments will be aimed with this legislation at communities with high levels of unemployment, with excess manufacturing capacity, and with brownfield industrial cleanup sites--communities with enormous potential and significant needs. My State, as is Pennsylvania, is dotted with dozens of those communities. Our green energy manufacturing future should build on our great manufacturing past, revitalizing flagging industries, and reenergizing manufacturing hubs. This bill creates the Green Redevelopment Opportunity and Workforce Program that provides grants to companies a little further from commercialization than those that receive loans in the Green Markets Program. These companies have green energy ideas that are a few years away from the market. Without these grants, they would never make it into production. We cannot pick, and we should not pick, winners in the fight for the future of green energy, so we must explore as many ideas and inventions that get to the market as possible. My bill would also establish grant money for pilot programs for green energy communities, colleges, and National Guard bases even. These pilot programs will serve as important resources for business interested in commercializing green technologies, as well as models for other communities that are trying to transition their economies to green energy. The corporation will run a green energy internship and apprenticeship program that will help innovate green energy companies, hire new talent, and help students earn valuable industry experience in this new industry as it begins to take off. My bill establishes a Green Energy Efficiency Grant Program that is a dollar-for-dollar match for energy producers, including municipal power companies and rural electric co-ops. This provision helps by ending the conflict that energy producers often face with protecting the environment and growing their businesses. These energy producers try to encourage people to conserve, but at the same time they are saying don't buy our product, which obviously is not a good business decision. This provision in this legislation will help answer that. By meeting these companies halfway, by matching their investment in energy efficiency, the Government cannot do it all, but it can help these responsible companies do right by the consumers and the environment. Today, most of Ohio's oil wells are dry, coal production is literally only half what it was in 1970, and Ohio's manufacturing centers from Steubenville to Lima, from Ravenna to Springfield, from Xenia to Findlay, are struggling to remain competitive. Our Nation's green future is more than using green energy or living in green houses or putting in green light bulbs. All those things are good, but we must build the green energy and its components in the United States. We know green energy is inevitable, but importing green energy from China and Germany, like we do today with oil from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, need not be inevitable, and it is not in our Nation's best interests. We need to end our foreign energy dependence, whether it is today, too much with Saudi Arabia, or in the future, too much with Germany. The next green energy company that can change the world is out there waiting to happen. It could be the National Composite Center in Dayton, could be the cutting-edge fuel cell research ongoing in Mount Vernon, OH. We can do this. If we do this right, if we wean ourselves from foreign oil, we can create good-paying jobs right here at home in the United States of America.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, this week is the sixth annual Cover the Uninsured Week. Community organizations and foundations around the country will be hosting events to highlight the need for health reform. Across the Nation, we all know this: 47 million people lack health insurance. In my State of Ohio, 1.2 million people, 11 percent of the population, are uninsured. It is no different in the Presiding Officer's State of Pennsylvania. But that even one American lacks health coverage is a national embarrassment. We are the wealthiest Nation in the world. We spend $2.38 trillion a year, $2.3 trillion a year in health care, but we cannot make sure that every American has health care coverage? Of course we can. Every other industrialized nation on this Earth ensures access to coverage. We in this body have chosen not to. Last year Congress tried to provide health coverage to millions more low-income children. The House and Senate both passed bills twice to provide $35 billion over 5 years in additional funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Plan. It was the biggest bipartisan initiative to expand health care coverage in years. Twice--not once but twice--the President vetoed that legislation. We spend more than $3 billion every week in the war in Iraq. The President vetoed legislation spending $7 billion a year to insure 4 million children; $3 billion a week every week in Iraq; the President vetoed $7 billion a year to insure 4 million children. These are the sons and daughters of working parents; sons and daughters of parents in Toledo, in Mansfield, in Zanesville, who are working hard and playing by the rules. Think about this: Since I have begun to speak a few moments ago, we have, in Iraq, spent $650,000. Yesterday in Iraq we spent $400 million. Last week in Iraq we spent $3 billion. Again, the President vetoed legislation $7 billion a year for 4 million children. It was disappointing to us as advocates for children's health insurance. But mostly it was disappointing to the parents of children around my State, in Cincinnati, from Ashtabula, from Marietta to Springfield, to Lima, parents around Ohio and around the country who need health insurance for their children. Not only do many low-income children live without health insurance, but families whose breadwinners are self-employed or who work for small businesses struggle to get health insurance too, families such as the Coltmans of Conneaut, OH, a community in the northeast corner right across the line from Pennsylvania. The Coltmans are a large family with five children and two hard-working parents. Last year their 7-year-old son Caleb was diagnosed with leukemia. The doctors are optimistic, but treatment is wildly expensive. Last year, Kenna Coltman, Caleb's mother, left her job to work for her family business, a neighborhood grocery store. Unfortunately, this meant she had to search for new health insurance. After a long search for private insurance, the Coltmans found an affordable plan, but it was not scheduled to go into effect until August. By that time, Caleb had been diagnosed with leukemia, which was a deal breaker for the private insurer. Uninsured, facing a catastrophic illness, a parent's worst nightmare, the Coltmans had run out of options. Kenna, the mother, a college-educated daughter herself of two Conneaut natives, recounted the experience this way. She said: If there was absolutely any other way to get our son the care and medication he needs without totally impoverishing our family, we would do it. In a country like ours, families should not have to worry about being thrown into abject poverty to pay for health insurance. Families want to do the right thing. They want to insure their children. They work hard, they play by the rules. But insurance is too often out of reach. That is why today I am introducing a bill to make health insurance more viable for workers employed by small businesses. The Small Business Empowerment Act would create an insurance program for small businesses and self-employed Americans. This program is modeled after the excellent coverage that is provided to Federal workers and to Members of the House and Senate. To keep premiums affordable, the Department of Health and Human Services would create a reinsurance mechanism to help cover high-cost enrollees. The legislation would establish a Federal commission to tackle the toughest health policy issues: how to rein in health care spending without compromising health care quality and access; how to craft an insurance package that treats all enrollees equally, regardless of what type of health care they need, which is essential; how to combat price gouging by the drug industry, the medical device industry, and the insurance industry. In other words, how to ensure our health care system is sustainable and equitable, efficient and effective. The bill was introduced to help families such as the Coltmans. Thankfully, Caleb's current prognosis is good, and the family business seems to be turning the corner. His treatment was covered by Ohio's Medicaid I Program, another program that is crucial to providing coverage to families who are struggling; another program that is under attack by this administration as it tries to change the rules and as it cuts billions of dollars from the program. This week and every week we need to work to keep Medicaid strong, to realize the expansion of CHIP for which we fought so hard, and to pass legislation for the self-employed and workers in small businesses. The small employer health insurance bill provides more options so that the rest of the Coltman family, including Caleb's parents, can access health insurance too. I don't want Caleb's parents in Conneaut, OH, to live in fear when their children fall down or get in an accident or catch the flu or have an allergic reaction to something they ate. They have enough on their plate already. I look forward to working with my colleagues to protect Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program and to pass this bill. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, America's workforce is facing immense challenges. Our country has lost 230,000 jobs in the first 3 months of 2008. Many of those jobs are in the Presiding Officer's State of Michigan and my State of Ohio. The national unemployment rate has gone to 5.1 percent. In Ohio, unemployment hovers around 6 percent. Early this year, Congress passed an economic stimulus package--a necessary step but only a small step and a first step. Wall Street projects an unemployment rate of 6.5 percent by the end of 2009. It will likely be higher in my State. We have not acted on extending unemployment insurance. The Republicans filibustered extending unemployment insurance when we passed the stimulus package earlier this year. The Republicans again have stopped our efforts and have refused to extend unemployment benefits. Over 2.6 million Americans--35 percent of all unemployed workers-- have already exhausted their unemployment benefits over the past 12 months. These are people who want to work, who have tried to find other jobs, who simply have been unsuccessful in finding decent jobs. Workers have paid into the unemployment system for years and deserve protection now. Again, these are workers who have paid into this fund. This is an insurance fund. It is not a welfare fund. These workers deserve the compensation to help during their difficult times as they search for jobs. I urge my colleagues to end their filibuster and to work on extending unemployment insurance. The President continues to push for a Colombia trade deal. We have not even acted on trade adjustment assistance which provides vital assistance to workers who lose their jobs because of trade. The President has actually threatened to veto the House trade adjustment assistance package. Whether we have another trade deal, one thing is certain. Trade assistance needs to be reformed, and it needs to be expanded to workers who cannot, in every case, prove they lost their jobs because of trade, even though they probably did. It should be expanded to service workers who have lost their jobs. Last week, Senate Republicans staged a filibuster to prevent even having a debate on giving a woman a day in court when she faces discrimination in the workplace. Today, women and victims of discrimination, based on race or age or disability or religion, are denied a remedy when they are denied equal pay for equal work. It should not be a partisan issue, but the Republicans have made it one. Today is Workers Memorial Day--a day set aside every year to honor workers killed and hurt on the job. Trade unionists around the world mark April 28 as an International Day of Mourning. The most recent data shows that in the United States, there were 5,840 fatal workplace injuries in 2006. Over 5,800 Americans were killed on the job in 2006, over 100 more than in 2005. This includes 196 workers in my State of Ohio. Under this administration, workplace inspections have declined. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has not vigorously enforced current laws and regulations on the books. It has not set any standards except by court order. It continues to rely on ``voluntary'' compliance to protect workers in many of the most dangerous occupations. OSHA has dragged its feet on the butter flavoring chemical in popcorn that has caused a fatal lung disease known as popcorn lung disease. That is too late for Keith Campbell in Caledonia, OH, who is 50 years old but has the lungs of an 80-year-old because of exposure to the chemical at the popcorn plant in Marion, OH. The point is, it has taken decades of struggle by workers and unions to improve conditions in the mines, in the meatpacking plants, and in the metal stamping shops--in all kinds of plants where workers get all kinds of occupational injuries and illnesses. This progress has been slowly, and sometimes not so slowly, unraveled by the Bush administration. Through budget cuts and a shift in emphasis to voluntary employer programs, the administration is essentially telling workers they are on their own. It hearkens back to an era when workers were treated like disposable goods. In election years, some candidates give drive-by speeches in towns that are hit hard by unfair trade deals and tell them the ownership society is working. In some sense, it is true. More and more, workers ``own'' responsibility for their own safety, their own retirement, and their own health care. We hear some candidates sometimes talk about how if only taxes on the wealthiest Americans were lower, companies would not outsource production to China or Mexico or to any other country. I don't think that argument is passing the straight-face test these days. Middle-class families aren't buying it because they see perfectly well what is happening around them. The message of the ownership society coming from the White House is that every man and woman is responsible for himself or herself. But the result of the policies pursued under that banner of the ownership society is the greatest concentration of ownership in the hands of a few that we have seen since the Great Depression. It is ownership all right but only for those in high society. Over the past 8 years, we have seen an administration that neither values nor rewards hard work. We have seen an administration that simply doesn't value manufacturing. Manufacturing changed the face of America and created a middle class that used its strength and power to change the course of society. The progress in labor rights, women's suffrage, antitrust laws, conservation, and the social safety net would not have happened without manufacturing and would not have happened without rewarding our work. When the Bush administration fails to value these manufacturing jobs in the first place, why should we not be surprised when it doesn't value safety in industries such as construction, mining, transportation, and manufacturing? Our Nation is struggling. We struggle because of the Federal Government's wrongheaded tax policy, and because our trade policy all too often encourages investors to move jobs overseas. In the last 14 months, I have traveled my State extensively and held roundtables with community leaders, workers, activists, teachers, farmers, and veterans in almost 100 different places in 62 of Ohio's 88 counties. It is clear to me that Ohio workers are fighting back to build a decent standard of living for themselves and for others to provide opportunities for their children and to construct a more prosperous State, one where smart and hard work is rewarded. I listened to a woman, Dee Dee, who sat in negotiations representing 1,200 janitors in Cincinnati--1,200 men and women who work hard, raise their children, and who contribute to their community; and in this case they are not earning much more than the minimum wage. Joined by several others at the bargaining table, Dee Dee helped reach an agreement with Cincinnati's office building owners. Over the next 3 years, 1,200 janitors will get between a $2- and $3-an-hour raise, health benefits, and they will get a small pension. In northwest Ohio, in the farmland of Henry County, Mark Schwiebert, a very productive farmer in an increasingly competitive environment, told me his story. He is proud of his farm, to be sure, but he also takes his role seriously as an American citizen. He is an advocate for family farmers and for fair trade, understanding that the prosperity of Ohio depends on a vibrant rural Ohio where young people want to stay and work in their communities. Ohioans and workers across the country are fighting back. They did not go away after this Chamber voted down the Fair Pay Act, again a victim of Republican filibuster. They did not go away last year when Republicans mounted yet another filibuster to prevent the Senate from considering legislation to level the playing field for unions trying to represent new groups of workers. They would not go away just because this administration has ignored worker safety and is forcing more families to mourn loved ones on Workers Memorial Day. We need an ownership society, but it needs to be one in which workers own a greater share of the profits from their productivity, and the Government and employers own a greater share of responsibility for their safety and their well-being. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes, to be followed for 10 minutes by Senator Klobuchar, as in morning business and for it to count postcloture.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I wish to honor the service of a great American--U.S. Air Force retired MAJ D. Brock Foster. A native of Ohio who served his country in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, Major Foster demonstrated uncommon courage while flying as an A-1 Skyraider during a rescue mission near the Ho Chi Minh Trail on June 28, 1968. At great risk to his personal safety, Major Foster remained in the rescue area amid heavy antiaircraft artillery and enemy fire to make repeated passes to protect the rescue helicopter. Major Foster's selfless heroism enabled the successful rescue of the Navy pilot who had been encircled by hostile forces for more than 39 hours. Nearly 40 years later, Major Foster is receiving long overdue recognition for his sacrifice and valor and will be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. Given to those who distinguish themselves in aerial flight by taking heroic actions above and beyond the call of duty, the Distinguished Flying Cross is a fitting recognition of Major Foster's unwavering dedication to the service of the United States. I am proud to honor this great Ohioan. His heroic actions and dedication to the U.S. Air Force and his fellow servicemen are an inspiration to all Americans.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, our country has lost 230,000 jobs in just the first 3 months of this year. The unemployment rate has gone up to 5.1 percent. In Ohio, unemployment hovers around 6 percent. Women are also disproportionately at risk in the current foreclosure crisis, since women are 32 percent more likely than men to have subprime mortgages. Existing pay disparities for women exacerbate the economic strain on women and on households run by women, since women earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. Women have significantly fewer savings to fall back on in a time of economic hardship. Nonmarried women have a net worth 48 percent lower than nonmarried men, and women are less likely than men to participate in employer-sponsored retirement savings programs. These facts make this bill--the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act--all the more timely. Lilly Ledbetter was one of just a handful of female supervisors in the Goodyear tire plant in Gadsden, AL. For years, she endured insults from her male bosses because she was a woman in a traditionally male job. She worked 12-hour shifts--which often stretched to 18 hours or more when another supervisor was absent. But she did not know she was being paid less than men until later in her career. She had no way of knowing how much her coworkers made. Late in her career with the company, Lilly got an anonymous note in her mailbox informing her that Goodyear paid her male counterparts 20 to 40 percent more than she earned for doing the same job. She then filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She also filed a lawsuit. In court, a jury found that Goodyear discriminated against Lilly Ledbetter. The jury awarded Ms. Ledbetter full damages, but the Supreme Court said she was entitled to nothing because she was too late in filing her claim. The Court's Ledbetter decision reversed decades of precedent in the courts of appeals. It also overturned the policy of the EEOC under both Democratic and Republican administrations. The Bush EEOC was on the side of Lilly Ledbetter until the Solicitor General took over for the Bush administration. The Ledbetter decision leaves workers powerless to hold their employers accountable for their unlawful, unjust conduct. Employers who can hide discrimination from their workers for just 180 days get free rein to continue to discriminate. The Fair Pay Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor, will allow workers to file a pay discrimination claim within 180 days of a discriminatory paycheck. It only makes sense that as long as the discrimination continues, a worker's ability to challenge it should continue also. This legislation would simply restore the law to what it was in almost every State in the country the day before the Ledbetter decision. We know it is workable and fair--it was the law of the land for decades. Now, some in this Chamber will say this will result in more litigation. That is wrong. The Fair Pay Act restores the law to what it was before the Supreme Court decision. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office says the bill will not establish a new cause of action for claims of pay discrimination. Restore the Fair Pay Act. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.