Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I am joined by my colleague and friend, Senator Rob Portman of Ohio--the other Senator from Ohio--to discuss the passing of a dear friend of his and of mine. I will make a few short remarks. I believe Senator Portman, who will be speaking at his memorial service later in the week in Cleveland will be offering a resolution and some comments to the resolution. This past weekend we were awakened on Sunday to learn that the State of Ohio and the city of Cleveland had lost one of its champions, George Voinovich. As mayor of my beloved city--the city I call home--Cleveland, as a two-term Governor of Ohio, and as my colleague for my first 4 years in the Senate before Senator Portman succeeded him, George dedicated his life to public service. A man of strong conviction, he was always willing to listen to the other side of an argument and to put what he believed was best for our State and for our country ahead of partisan politics. Of course, we didn't always agree, but we worked together in the Senate to make progress for Ohio on everything from judicial nominees to supporting our manufacturing industry to cleaning up our great lake, Lake Erie. When I came to the Senate in 2007, we assembled a commission of distinguished Ohio lawyers of both parties to find the candidates-- again, of both parties--to recommend as nominees for the Federal judiciary. I thank Senator Portman. Actually, this began with Senator DeWine and Senator Voinovich, and it has now continued from their service with Senator Portman and me doing the same thing. George had a lifelong love affair with what he called the ``jewel of the Great Lakes,'' Lake Erie. His fight to clean up and protect our lake began when he joined the Ohio Legislature almost exactly 50 years ago. At that time, people wrote off Lake Erie as a polluted, dying lake. Over the past century, people have had a habit of trying to write off Ohio. Like all of our State's champions, George wouldn't accept that. As my colleagues know, there is an enormous painting on the stairway outside the Senate Chamber depicting the American victory in the Battle of Lake Erie. George fought what he referred to as the ``second battle of Lake Erie,'' pushing for the first Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, cochairing the Senate's Great Lakes Task Force, working with me to introduce the Clean Water Affordability Act, which I continued to work on since his retirement in December of 2010. That tenacity paid off. Our lake has made an incredible comeback. We still have work to do every summer. We have to deal with the return of toxic algal blooms. Senator Portman and I have worked on that issue in the western basin of Lake Erie near Toledo. But because of the work and investment by people such as George, he was able to catch yellow perch not far from his own backyard in Collinwood, a section on the lake on the east side of Cleveland. It will be up to all of us who love Lake Erie and understand how vital it is to our State to continue that work for our Great Lake. George was the son of Serbian and Slovenian immigrants, and he understood the importance of investing in our Nation and investing in public works that create jobs and power our communities and our economy. In retirement, George Voinovich continued to push for ways to finance our Nation's infrastructure. Just this year he reached out to his friend, Senator Carper of Delaware, and to me about the need for dedicated public works funding. He was willing to reach across the aisle to work with us on projects such as the Brent Spence Bridge, which we still need to rebuild, and loan guarantees and tax incentives for Ohio's manufacturers and small businesses. He was a deeply religious man. He was guided by his faith through nearly half a century in public service. That faith sustained him through the worst tragedy that any parent can imagine, when his 9-year- old daughter Molly was killed during George Voinovich's first campaign for mayor of Cleveland. He said of that experience later: When one loses a child, things come into focus, what is important, what is unimportant. You see more. You feel more. You experience more. We all take so much for granted. I hope we will take George's passing as an opportunity to reflect on what we take for granted and what is important to us as a country. On behalf of everyone in this body, I send my deepest condolences to Janet Voinovich, to their children, and to everyone touched by George's life and, frankly, her life of public service. His legacy will live on through the lasting contributions he made to his beloved Cleveland, to Ohio, and to our great country. I yield to my friend from Ohio.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will explain if I could. First of all, this doesn't belong in NDAA. This is not a defense issue, but I would like to talk more substantively about it and then make another statement. I strongly support tribal sovereignty. I know my colleagues appreciate Senator Moran's genuine interest in this. He is my friend. We have worked on a number of issues in banking together. We don't agree on this, but that is the way things are. I do believe both sides of the aisle do support tribal sovereignty. This amendment, though, is not about tribal sovereignty. It is about undermining labor laws--laws that protect the rights of workers to organize and collectively bargain--one of America's great values that more than almost anything--other than democratic government--created and maintained a middle class, organizing and bargaining collectively. Specifically, the amendment attempts to overturn NLRB decisions that have asserted the Board's jurisdiction over labor disputes on tribal lands. The Board has methodically evaluated when they do and don't have jurisdiction on tribal lands by using a very carefully crafted test to ensure that the Board's jurisdiction would not violate tribal rights and does not interfere in exclusive right to self-governance. In a June 2015 decision, the NLRB employed the test and did not assert jurisdiction in a tribal land-labor dispute. Instead, the amendment is part of an agenda to undermine the rights of American workers. We have seen it regularly. We see it in State capitols. We saw it in my State capitol 5 years ago when the Governor went after collective bargaining rights for public employees. For the first and only time in American history, voters in a statewide election said no to rolling back collective bargaining rights. It was the only time it ever happened, and it was by 22 percentage points. The amendment is part of an agenda to undermine the rights of American workers, including 600,000 employees of tribal casinos--75 percent of them are not nonnative Indians, non-Indians. Courts have upheld the application to the tribes of Federal employment laws, including Fair Labor Standards Act, the Operational Safety and Health Act, the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, and title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition to harming the thousands of already organized workers at commercial tribal enterprises, this amendment would establish a dangerous precedent to weaken longstanding worker protections on tribal lands. Mr. President, for these reasons, I object.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I am pleased to join my friends--Senator Casey, who led this debate; Senator Manchin, who has worked on this legislation and devoted much of his career to the people that go down into the mines and provide the coal and electricity for much of the eastern half of the United States; Senator Warner, for his work with Senator Casey and Senator Wyden on the Finance Committee. Thanks to all of them. I want to talk about two pension issues starting with what happened 2 weeks ago, when hundreds of thousands of Teamsters and their families received exciting news that the U.S. Treasury was rejecting the Central States Pension Fund's plan to cut the pensions and benefits they had earned through a lifetime of hard work. This was a win for all of us who urged Treasury to reject these cuts. More importantly, it was a win for the thousands of union members, their families, their supporters, and their friends who worked so hard to protect what their union had spent decades fighting for. That rejection, to be sure, is not the end of the fight for the benefits that workers have earned. It was just the latest battle in the fight to protect workers' pensions. While Central States' 47,000 Teamsters in my State and tens of thousands in other States may have gotten a reprieve, we have more work to do. As Senator Manchin just spoke about, our Nation's retired coal miners are on the brink of losing their health care and retirement savings, and it is within the power of Congress to pull them back. The health care and pension plans of the United Mine Workers of America cover some 100,000 mine workers, about 7,000 of them living in my State, mostly in Southeast Ohio. The plans were almost completely funded before the financial collapse in 2008, but the industry and its pension funds were devastated by the recession. The plan has too few assets, too few employers, and too few union workers now paying in. If Congress fails to act, thousands of retired miners could lose their health care this year, and the entire plan could fail as early as next year. This would be devastating for retired mine workers, like my constituent, Norm Skinner. I met Norm in March before a Finance Committee hearing on pension plans that are under threat. Norm is a veteran. He started working as a miner for what became Peabody Coal in 1973. He worked for 22 years and retired in 1994. For every one of those years, he earned and contributed to his retiree health care plan and his pension plan. Since he retired, Norm has had nearly constant health challenges--not that unusual for people who work in some of the most dangerous conditions in American business. He had triple bypass surgery in 2010. Three years later, they inserted stents, and he had angioplasty. Norm told me that 60 percent of his colleagues at the mine have died of cancer because of the chemicals. When they closed the mine, teams of people wearing hazmat suits came in to clean it. His entire shovel crew has died of cancer. Some were in their fifties when they passed away. But now, after putting in decades in this dangerous mine, Norm is in danger of losing the health care that has kept him alive. I also met with David Dilly, who worked in the same SIMCO mine. David is also a veteran, and he worked for 14 years at the mine before it closed down in 1989. He was a UMWA member, even serving as president of Local 1188 for a couple of years, and he serves as recording secretary still. Mining is hard, backbreaking work. It is dangerous. It is dangerous every day in the mine. It is dangerous for the air and the chemicals that mine workers ingest. They knew that when they signed up for the job. But that work has dignity. It is crucial to us and in our national interest as a country. It is a dignity rooted in providing security and opportunity for their family. We used to have a covenant in this country that said: If you work hard, if you put in the hours, if you contribute to retirement and your health care, you will be able to support yourself and your family. What they are doing is giving up union negotiations and also giving up wages today to take care of themselves and their family in later years so that government or friends or other family members don't have to. What is more honorable than that? It is what made this country great. It is what built the middle class. So when earned benefits like collectively bargained pensions and health care can be cut, we are going back on a fundamental promise that our country has made to tens of millions of American workers. There is a bipartisan solution proposed by the two Senators from West Virginia and supported by leaders in both parties. The bill uses the interest and surplus from an existing source of money, the Abandoned Mines Reclamation Fund, and funnels that money into the health care and pension plans. This is a fund for reclaiming the land of retired coal mines. So it makes sense to use the surplus to support retired coal mine workers and their families. If this bipartisan legislation was brought to the floor today, it would pass with an overwhelming majority. It is time for the Senate to act. This legislation has been blocked by one Republican leader in this body. The support of Senator Wyden, Senator Warner, and Senator Casey and in the committee seems to be unanimous from the chairman on down. We are just looking to the Republican leader to give us a vote on this because we are absolutely certain it would pass. Miners worked in dangerous conditions their entire lives to put food on the table, to send their kids to college, and to help power this country. I have worn on my lapel a pin given to me at a workers' memorial day in the late 1990s, on an April day, where we were memorialized workers who had been killed or injured on the job in the steel industry. This is a depiction of a canary in a birdcage. In the early 1900s, the mine workers would take a canary down in the mines. If a canary died because of lack of oxygen or toxic gas, the mine workers knew they had to get out of the mine. Yet, in those days, there was no union strong enough to protect them and they had no government that cared enough to protect them. We are in the situation today where it is up to us to be that canary. It is up to us to provide for those workers--who have earned these pensions, who have earned this health care for themselves and, in far too many cases, for their widows--and to step up and do the right thing.

Mr. BROWN

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

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, as Senator Hatch has mentioned, in April the Department of Labor just issued its final conflict-of-interest, or fiduciary, rule, putting in place a framework of meaningful protections for Americans saving for retirement. The rule helps families save for retirement at a time when fewer and fewer workers have traditional pensions. Today my Republican colleagues are trying to block this rule. I join Ranking Member Murray of the HELP Committee and Ranking Member Wyden of the Finance Committee--on which the Presiding Officer and I both sit--to recommend that you vote no on the joint resolution. It is important to remember why this rule is necessary. Since the enactment of ERISA and the creation of 401(k) plans and individual retirement accounts in the 1970s, there has been a dramatic shift from traditional pension plans run by employers--that is where when you retire, there is a so-called defined benefit where you can count on a certain number of dollars a month for the rest of your life and perhaps for your spouse--to defined contribution plans that workers are left to manage themselves. Maximizing retirement savings and avoiding high fees and costs are more critical than ever. But most American workers need advice on how to prepare for retirement and navigate these plans, which can be both complicated and, maybe more importantly, risky. The DOL's rule--the Labor Department's rule--makes sure brokers and advisers act ``in the best interest'' of their customers and minimize the potential for conflicts of interest that could eat away at a saver's nest egg. This doesn't mean that diligent brokers and advisers have not been helping their customers, but the rule creates structural protections to make sure that is always the case. It is that simple: Customers come first. There is no alternative to that basic principle. Whether you are visiting your doctor or going to a lawyer, your interests come first. Following the rule proposal in 2015, the DOL reviewed hundreds of comments, held days of hearings, and issued a final rule with extensive changes that address a variety of concerns that many of us have heard. The major changes include extending the implementation period, simplifying disclosure requirements, and clarifying the difference between education and advice. The full list of changes is much longer and resulted in significant improvement. Most of the industry recognizes that and has said so. Thankfully, banks and brokers are already working on implementation. The Department of Labor is committed to helping companies figure out how to make the necessary changes and adapt to the rule. Industry and some in Congress have called for the SEC to issue its own fiduciary rule before the Labor Department. The Wall Street reform bill required the SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission, to consider its own rule. I urge them to move forward as well, but there is no reason for the Department of Labor to wait for the sometimes-too- slow SEC. Congress gave retirement accounts tax-favored status and significant protections under ERISA. The Labor Department's rules build on the statutory framework under ERISA, and now the fiduciary rule reflects the reality of the modern retirement landscape. It is time to move forward to help protect this generation and future generations of American savers. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the resolution so the implementation of this rule can continue to move forward to protect the interests of millions of hard-working Americans who are saving for retirement. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, on Saturday I visited the General Motors Lordstown plant near Youngstown to celebrate its 50th anniversary. For half a century, this plant has been an anchor of the Mahoning Valley. It has supported good, middle-class union jobs through good times and bad. Seven Ohioans--get this--seven workers at that plant have been there for all 50 of those years. Albert Gifford, Mossco Dubose, John Brincko, Robert Polansky, Thomas Koppel, John Rosa, and Stephen Gazdik have helped build 21 different General Motors models since 1966, starting with the Chevy Impala. The car they make now is the Chevy Cruze. My wife and I are proud Chevy Cruze owners. I drove to the plant in one. I was proud to be at GM Lordstown in 2010 to see the very first Chevy Cruze roll off the assembly line. The first three Cruzes were painted red, white, and blue. They represented the determination of a community and a country-- think about the auto industry and the state of the economy back in 2010. They represented the determination of the country to bounce back and succeed in the face of long odds and national naysayers who wanted to write off this plant and that community. It has been a rough few years for that industry. Think about where we were less than a decade ago. Auto sales were down 40 percent, 1 million jobs were at risk of being lost, on top of the 8 million jobs we had already lost as President Obama took office. We heard rightwing politicians on the news calling the American auto industry dead, but what they meant was they didn't believe it was worth saving. They wanted to bet against American companies and against American workers. The workers at Lordstown and at plants like it across Ohio--in Toledo, in Defiance and Cleveland and Walton Hills and Avon Lake--and across the country proved them wrong. Working together with President Obama, we invested in rescuing the American auto industry. Right now, because of the auto rescue, because of workers in Lordstown, in Parma and Cleveland and across the Midwest, the American auto industry is roaring back to life. GM posted 5 percent gains in sales last year. Let's be clear. Ohio and much of the Midwest would be close to a depression if the doubters and the naysayers had their way. But we refused to let the auto industry collapse, and history has proven it was the right thing to do. The people of Northeast Ohio know how important it was. So do people across the whole State. So do people across that region. The cars made in Lordstown epitomize how central the auto industry is to Ohio's economy. The Chevy Cruze features components made at plants all across Ohio. The engine blocks are manufactured in Defiance, the transmissions are assembled in Toledo, the wheels for the Chevy Cruze Eco are made by Alcoa in Cleveland, and parts are stamped in Parma and also in Lordstown. Ever since the first Chevy Impala rolled off the lot in 1966, the Mahoning Valley has depended on Lordstown. This is the industry and the company on which the great American middle class was built. On Saturday, anyone could see how central this plant is to its community. GM estimates that more than 10,000 people--young and old, families with their children, vintage car buffs, former workers--turned out to watch the parade, stroll through the car show, and tour the plant. The line to get into the plant stretched down the street and around the block. That is what this plant and this auto industry mean to the communities they serve. I know this community and this State will continue to depend on auto workers for another 50 years and beyond. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the Lee amendment No. 3897. I wish to take a moment to thank Senator Collins and Senator Jack Reed for their terrific work on this bill and for how they teamed up to manage this bill in pretty much the right way. With this legislation, we are making critical investments in our transportation, housing, and community development programs. In this country today, one in four families who rent spend more than half of their income on housing. We have been taught from young adulthood on that you shouldn't spend more than 25, 30, or 35 percent at the most on house payments or rent, yet one-fourth of Americans are spending more than half of their income on housing. I recently read the book ``Evicted'' by Matthew Desmond. In that book, one renter was quoted as saying that when her paycheck came in, her rent eats first. She had kids who were hungry. She had bus tokens to buy so she could get to work. With all of the challenges she had, she said: My rent eats first. We know what that means. In housing, whether it is in rural Maine or whether it is in urban or rural Ohio, we know that rental prices have continued to go up and up. Evictions are so much more common than they were a decade or, especially, two decades ago. That has to change, and it makes clear why we need to maintain our existing affordable housing resources. This bill focuses on improving the quality of federally assisted houses and removing lead paint hazards from homes. We know the effect that has on us. We learned from Flint about water, but we know an even bigger problem is lead in paint. In 2007, in the city that I call home, the city of Cleveland--the ZIP Code I live in, 44105--there were more foreclosures in my ZIP Code than any ZIP Code in the United States. We also know in cities like Cleveland and rural areas like Appalachia, where most of the housing stock is World War II or older, almost all of that housing stock has toxic levels of lead paint. The bill pays particular attention to transit safety. The Banking Committee oversees transit. Senator Mikulski has worked with Senator Shelby and me, as well as our colleagues representing the local area-- Senators Warner, Cardin, and Kaine--to make sure the FTA has the resources needed to oversee the Washington Metro. It is something we have neglected for decades. I wish to thank my colleagues for working with us to ensure that young foster care alumni don't have to choose between getting the education they need to be self-sufficient and having a roof over their heads. I wish more funds were available for these important investments--particularly, additional funding to address family homelessness. But I thank my colleagues for their work within the subcommittee's funding constraints and their attention to these critical issues. I especially thank the chair, Susan Collins, for that. Unfortunately, Senator Lee's amendment will undermine some of the good we are doing with this legislation. It will prohibit the Department of Housing and Urban Development from carrying out a key component of the Fair Housing Act of 1968. When Congress passed that bill in the wake of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., it made housing discrimination illegal in every State in the Nation for the first time. For generations, redlining, restrictive covenants, and outright discrimination kept families of color locked out of entire neighborhoods and created segregated communities that linger to this day. These were tools of racial oppression as well as economic oppression, and in far too many cases, they went hand in hand. The Fair Housing Act made these despicable practices illegal everywhere. Congress included another important component in the Fair Housing Act: a requirement that HUD and its grantees administer their federal housing and urban development grants in a way that would affirmatively further fair housing. State and local governments and public housing authorities were required to use their Federal funds in ways that would reverse, rather than reinforce, segregation in these communities. But today, the outlines of decades-old discrimination are still too visible. I listened to a preacher on Martin Luther King Day on a cold Cleveland January morning 2\1/2\ years ago. He said something we all know but don't think enough about: Life expectancy is connected to your ZIP Code. Whether you grow up on the east side of Cleveland, whether you grow up in a wealthy suburb, whether you grow up in Appalachia, whether you grow up in a prosperous small town, your ZIP Code determines whether you have access to good health care, to quality education, to social support necessary to succeed. When where you live matters this much, we all have a moral obligation to ensure that families can live in the neighborhoods of their choice and to ensure that communities are creating opportunity in every ZIP Code. Unfortunately, in the 50 years since our country passed the Fair Housing Act, HUD has not provided enough direction to help communities meet this goal. A 2010 GAO report recommended that HUD take action to improve its process for meeting its obligations, including three things: establishing standards and a format for grantees to follow, requiring grantees to establish timeframes for implementing their plans, and requiring grantees to submit their analyses to HUD for review. HUD developed a new rule that will finally help local governments across the country support and foster fair housing policies that create vibrant and integrated communities. This rule was developed through a 2-year public process. Twelve of my colleagues and I urged Secretary Castro to develop a strong rule after considering comments from stakeholders. Senator Lee's amendment would stop HUD from responding to those GAO recommendations. The updated rule will give communities the clarity and the tools they need to meet their obligations and fulfill this duty that this Senate has supported in a bipartisan way for going on five decades now. Some of the questions communities will ask during these assessments may demand that they think in new ways about how to create housing opportunities for all the residents, regardless of race, religion, disability, or the size of their families. These are the types of questions this body told the country to ask when it enacted the Fair Housing Act in 1968. We need to invest Federal resources in ways that provide access to opportunity to all citizens in every ZIP Code. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Lee amendment. Invictus Games Madam President, last week athletes from around the world traveled to Orlando to compete in the second Invictus Games. Like all athletes, they participate for many reasons--camaraderie, personal discipline, the joy of the game. But the Invictus competitors are so much more: They are veterans who fought for our country and our allies and were wounded or suffered mental injuries in service to a cause greater than themselves. The games were founded in 2014 by England's Prince Harry to bring Active-Duty servicemembers and veterans together to compete in an international sporting event and to recognize their achievements. These warrior athletes have already given so much for our country. They have seen the horrors of combat, spent months and years away from their families, and suffered injuries, both visible and not so visible. They have been changed forever by the realities of war but, as Invictus shows, they have not been defeated. The name of the games comes from the poem of the same name by the 19th century British poet William Ernest Henley. ``Invictus'' means ``unconquered.'' On a personal note, ``Invictus'' was my father's favorite poem, which we shared at his funeral. I became even more interested in these games because it means ``unconquered.'' Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the poem ``Invictus'' by William Ernest Henley.

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, the words of ``Invictus'' have inspired men and women for generations, and the spirit is alive in the athletes who represented their countries in Orlando. Three people from my State competed on the U.S. team. Army CPT Kelly Elmlinger is a mother, cancer survivor, and fierce competitor who grew up in Attica in Seneca County, which is in my part of the State. She brought home the gold for our country in the women's 400-meter dash. Team USA included Brian McPherson, a Marine Corps sergeant from Nashport, just east of Columbus. Sergeant McPherson has battled a traumatic brain injury sustained while deployed in Iraq when a suicide bomber walked into his unit. He competed in track and field and cycle competitions. He said: I am a son, brother, uncle, professional, Marine, and athlete who proudly stands before you after being ravaged by war. I was and am changed from these events but they lead me to what I now consider a greater path. Those times have taught me much about myself, while giving me the additional skills to leave the Marines and integrate back into society. Competitions like this have been so important to that journey. He said: Adaptive sports gave me the strength to be an example for fellow servicemembers, civilians, and myself. I learned of a passion I didn't know existed deep within me. Sports have given me an outlet and time to sort through my thoughts and emotions. Lastly, Stephen Miller, a retired Navy officer from Cleveland, competed in indoor rowing in Orlando. He said: Training helps to remind me that I am part of a team and family. I get to share the experiences, recovery and memories not only with US athletes, but also with our allies and comrades. He, Sergeant McPherson, Captain Elmlinger, and all of the Invictus competitors embody William Ernest Henley's words: It matters not how strait the gate, How charged with punishments the scroll, I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul. These athletes have mastered fate on the battlefield, the sports field, and have overcome more trials than almost any of us could imagine. Their perseverance serves as a testament to the power of the human spirit. It isn't sympathy or charity that we owe these heroes; we owe them gratitude, respect, and the opportunity to live a life that befits their service and sacrifice for our great Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN

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

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the University of Mount Union Concert Choir as it continues its spring tour, which began Sunday, May 8, at the National Cathedral in Washington, DC. Mount Union's concert choir prides itself as one of the oldest collegiate choirs in the United States and has been part of the school's history since 1896. Arts at the collegiate level can enrich the student experience, giving music students and nonmusic students the opportunity to practice their vocal or instrumental skills and share their talents with both the campus and the local community. The group, comprised of individuals from almost every academic department, is a testament to the school's strong liberal arts mission. The group is led by Dr. Grant Cook III, the director of choral activities and an associate professor of music at Mount Union, an accomplished musician and conductor. His commitment to the arts gives these vocalist the opportunity to do what they love and be part of a strong team of singers. I am thrilled these young musicians have the opportunity to travel from Ohio to our Nation's Capital to kick off a tour that will take them from the National Cathedral to Virginia to Pennsylvania to New Jersey. This is an opportunity to see new parts of the country and show others what their university and our State have to offer. I wish all the students the best for a safe tour, including Tim Anderson, Alexandria Augustine, Angelica Bartholomew, Erin Bell, Anthony Bucci, Ali Caldwell, George Carr, Ian Donaldson, Sarah Donkin, Collin Edwards, Nick Embrogno, Caelyn Eppler, Abbie Fox, Connor Funk, Elizabeth Galloway-Purcell, Bradley Geist, Victoria Ginty, Matt Gorman, Jennifer Gotschall, Ben Hayes, Zach Henkels, Kyle Herman, Sarah Hohenadel, Kenan Irish, Rachel Irwin, Zak Jaeb, Jacqueline Jepsen, Abigail Lantz, David Lenahan, Jason Lopez, Patrick McKitrick, Paige Morris, Marcus Morrison, Hunter Munroe, Megan Ostrofsky, Rebecca Passer, Jesse Reed, Natalie Ricciutti, Abbigail Robertson, Jacob Rogers, Emily Siedel, Clinton Simmons III, Mary Anne Snyder, Chris Tucker, Abigail Van Auken, Alex Waitinas, Haley Walls, Tony Walsh, Jenna Waterman, Tommy Wines, Sarah Yannie, Martin Zapata, and Megan Zwart.

Mr. BROWN

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

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, on Tuesday, the world lost a courageous activist for international workers' rights, Harry Wu. Harry Wu spent 19 years in one of China's ``laogai'' prison labor camps. That word is pretty much unknown in English--L-A-O-G-A-I. It is a word that the Chinese made famous, at least in their part of the world, as the terribly brutal labor camps where they sent political prisoners. Mr. Wu was imprisoned in 1960 at age 23 because he spoke out against Communist China's ally in 1960, the Soviet Union, after its invasion of Hungary. Over those 19 years, from 1960 to 1979, Mr. Wu was brutalized. He was sent to work on farms, mines, and prison camps. He was beaten and forced into concrete cases. As he has written and told us, he survived on food he foraged in rats' nests. After his release, following Mao's death, Harry Wu dedicated the rest of his life to exposing the horrors that his homeland leaders inflicted on their own citizens. He risked his life to return to China under cover and gathered secret footage of the abuses in China's laogai, China's prison camps. He wouldn't let the world ignore Chinese atrocities. He wouldn't let us forget that opening our doors to China-- demanded by U.S. corporations with few strings attached--came at a steep price. Through the footage he collected, he helped show the world that products like cheap wrenches and artificial flowers sold in the United States were made with forced labor. Think about what this was about. U.S. companies would shut down their production in Mansfield, my hometown, or maybe in Baton Rouge or Cleveland, and move their production to China and sell those products back to the United States. The U.S. companies that moved to China never addressed the moral issue of what that move did to our communities. They never addressed the moral issue of, in some cases, using Chinese forced labor to make their products. These companies could also sell their products a little bit cheaper in the United States, and as a result, these companies could reap much bigger profits. The moral question of U.S. trade relations with China has rarely been touched in this body. It is just inconvenient for us to think about. Well, Mr. Wu never let it be inconvenient. As we approach the 15th anniversary of China's entry into the World Trade Organization this year and review China's nonmarket economy status, we should not forget the lessons of Harry Wu. Over the past decade, we have seen that prosperity in China does not lead to more political freedom. I knew Harry Wu. He testified before the Congressional-Executive Commission on China when I was chairman. He had testified several times. As recently as 2012, Mr. Wu warned Congress: The Laogai-- The forced labor camp-- system [is] deeply rooted into [China's] economic structure. . . . China's working class is different from that of the modern democratic countries. It includes not only ``workers'' in the ordinary sense, but also ``workers'' of the prison enterprises. These would be slaves. He warned that ``prisoners in Laogai, more like state slaves than enterprise workers, provide the state with an endless source of cheap or payless labor force.'' This system is an egregious human rights abuse against hundreds of thousands of Chinese people. It hurts American workers who are then forced to compete. This system they have set up is one of the reasons that people are really upset about what is happening in this country. Companies in my State of Ohio shut down production in Lima, Zanesville, and Chillicothe, then moved overseas to China in order to get a tax break, hired Chinese workers--some of them were slave laborers for some of the component manufacturing; some of them were just low-paid labor--to make these products in a totalitarian system and sell them back in the United States. American companies never talk about the moral dimension of that. I wrote a book a dozen or so years ago called the ``Myths of Free Trade.'' I interviewed Harry Wu about this book. He told me: ``Capitalism must never be equated with democracy.'' Because our country believes in capitalism and democracy, we think they always go together. Well, they don't. According to Harry Wu: Capitalism must never be equated with democracy. . . . Don't believe it about China. My homeland is mired in thousands of years of rule by one bully at a time, whether you call him emperor or chairman. Don't be fooled by electronics or air conditioning. Before his death, I think Mr. Wu would have said: Yes, the United States has been fooled. Maybe we choose to be fooled; maybe we choose to not know how the products that we hold in our hands are made--by an oppressive government using forced labor workers. We have been on a continuous march toward more trade with China and demanded far little in return. We have turned a blind eye to China's labor practices for too long. When you hear Presidential candidates and others complaining about China, it is always about putting American workers out of work, which it should be, but the other part of that moral question is about how we are using slave laborers in China to undercut American workers. How could an American worker or company possibly compete with slave labor in China? Obviously we can't, but we leave that moral question because U.S. corporations don't want to acknowledge and want to turn a blind eye toward slave labor. It reminds me of something from a few years ago when an American drug company was making a blood thinner--much of the production of that blood thinner came from China--with contaminated ingredients, and a number of people in Toledo, OH, died. The drug company didn't know where these products came from. They knew they came from China, but they didn't know where their supply ingredients came from. Think about that. They should be liable for that--at least you would think they should--but they just didn't think about the moral question there. A year and a half ago I gave a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, warning that before we sign any bilateral investment treaty with China, we need to demand that China comply with existing international obligations in domestic law. We have given China chance after chance, pushing for increased engagement, even though we know that China will play by its own rules. In the past year and a half, nothing has changed. We need to make clear the international obligations we expect China to meet on cyber security, human rights, forced labor, slaves making products that American children use, international trade, workers' rights, and other issues. We need to demand that China meet these standards now. Increased engagement by the United States may have led to more agreements on paper, and that is fine, but in reality the only thing it has achieved is our ongoing tolerance of Chinese transgressions. It may be tolerance, it may be ignoring, it may be shrugging our shoulders, it may be burying our heads in the sand, but I don't think we want to think much about slave labor in China. I don't think when we buy these products at Walmart--specializing in Chinese products--that we want to think much about where these products were made. We often know they were made in China, but we don't really want to think about how those workers produced these products. Harry Wu's passing is a reminder that this needs to end. His legacy includes the Laogai Museum here in Washington. I encourage my colleagues to visit the museum and pay their respects to Harry Wu. The best way they can pay their respects to Harry Wu is by changing our policies. The thousands upon thousands of other nameless prisoners who suffered in these Chinese prison camps should be honored equally. We can't forget this tragic legacy, and we can't forget the human rights abuses that continue to this day as they continue to make these same products in these same working conditions with these same slave laborers. It is shameful. It should not continue. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question? I would like to commend my colleagues for their support for energy efficiency programs that reduce residential energy consumption. Expanding the use of these technologies in our everyday lives is a commitment to our future and will create jobs in Ohio. However, I am also concerned that adjusting underwriting or appraisal requirements without sufficient protections to ensure a family has the ability to repay their loan could have unintended consequences that put our housing market at risk, which I know is not the intention of the sponsors.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, we would ask the sponsors of this amendment to work with us to ensure that we can accomplish our shared goals of encouraging investment in energy efficient homes while also maintaining a safe and sound mortgage market for homebuyers.

Mr. BROWN

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

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, 1 year ago today, the President nominated Adam Szubin to serve as Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes at the Treasury Department. Mr. Szubin's nomination was pending in the Banking Committee for more than 11 months before we finally acted on it. So far in this Congress--not this session, but the entire Congress-- the Senate has not acted on a single nominee from the Banking Committee, even those who play critical national security roles like Mr. Szubin. We have not even acted yet on certain nominees eligible for expedited consideration by the full Senate. In the past, the Senate acted on these ``privileged nominees'' as a routine manner. The hard-working people of Ohio, Arkansas, and Georgia expect the Senate to do its job. Part of our job is to give the President's nominees fair, respectful, and timely consideration. Unfortunately, the unprecedented partisan obstruction we have seen over Judge Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court has been a fact of life longer than that at the Banking Committee. The Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes is one of the most important national security posts in our government. Mr. Szubin serves in an acting capacity in that position. Despite having bipartisan support, as evidenced by the vote out of committee and as evidenced by his initial appointment to the executive branch by President Bush, his nomination has languished for a year--a full year-- because of one thing: Republican obstruction. Allowing this proven leader to remain unconfirmed weakens his position and undermines American influence in our efforts to track terrorists and stop them from raising money on the black market or elsewhere. The mission of Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence is too important right now for us to have anything less than our best person in that role with the full backing of this Senate. Mr. Szubin served Republican and Democratic administrations in senior positions related to economic sanctions and countering terrorist financing. His job is focused on leading our country's efforts to disrupt terrorist financing by ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other groups. There is absolutely no question that he is qualified. Over the last decade and a half, Mr. Szubin has distinguished himself as a tough and aggressive enforcer of our Nation's sanctions laws against Russia, Iran, and North Korea, against money launderers and terrorists and narcotraffickers. Given all the concerns surrounding terrorist financing, you would think a nomination for this position would be a priority. In the Senate Banking Committee and in the Senate in 2015 and 2016, that has not been the case. I repeat. One year ago he was nominated. One year ago the Senate Banking Committee got his nomination. Mr. Szubin's mentor, Bush administration Under Secretary Stuart Levy, was confirmed by the Senate 3 weeks after his nomination came to the Banking Committee, when the Democrats were in control of this Senate. Mr. Szubin's immediate predecessor took the Senate just 2\1/2\ months to consider. This is a critical national security post that must be filled permanently. Szubin heads what is, in effect, Treasury's economic war room, managing U.S. efforts to combat terrorist financing and fight financial crimes. He leads the charge to choke off ISIL's funding sources and prevent it from developing additional capacity to strike targets around the world. Cutting off the money supply, including profits from illicit oil sales, money-laundering extortion, and other crimes by ISIS actors is a critical part of our strategy to defeat this terrorist organization. He works to hold Iran to its commitment under the nuclear deal and to lead a campaign against the full range of Iran's other terrorizing, destructive, and destabilizing activities, including its support for Hezbollah and other terror proxies. He has broad support across the political spectrum. Even groups opposed to the Iran nuclear deal support his nomination. Banking Chair Shelby described Szubin as ``eminently qualified.'' The recent Panama Papers scandal shows how some of the richest and most powerful people may have used shell companies in offshore accounts to evade taxes, launder money, and dodge sanctions. The leak of these documents underscores the role that Mr. Szubin and the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence play in combatting money laundering and terrorist finance networks. It is yet another reminder of why Szubin's confirmation is so urgent. Mr. Szubin is well-regarded around the world for his intellect, his courage, his experience, his expertise, and his integrity. He deserves the strong backing of the Senate. Confirming him would demonstrate the commitment of the United States to disrupt and destroy the global financial networks of terrorist organizations. Without it, his ability to operate here and abroad is undermined. Treasury must have in place an experienced watchdog with the know-how and with the authority to lead U.S. efforts to track and choke off the financial lifeblood of terrorist organizations. The bottom line is Republicans in Congress need to stop holding our national security apparatus hostage to political demands. We need to allow Adam Szubin and other national security nominees to be approved. The Senate needs to do its job. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 478, the nomination of Adam J. Szubin to be Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes; that the Senate proceed to vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; and that following disposition of the nomination, the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I find it ironic. This is the first time we have actually heard specific reasons--all seeming fairly recent, mostly seeming fairly recent about objections to Mr. Szubin. But I also find it interesting that they talk about sanctions not being fully enforced. Well, don't you need someone in place who has the imprimatur of a full appointment to the position, not just nomination and serving as interim or acting but full appointment with Senate confirmation? I just stand puzzled by that, but I also understand the partisan nature of this. I remember my colleague's letter to the country of Iran that 46 Republican Senators signed saying, for all intents and purposes: Don't negotiate with President Obama. This is a lot about President Obama, but I don't care about that. What I care about is that he is acting in that position, and not confirming him makes no sense for our country. A full year has gone by. I intend to continue to press for approval of Adam Szubin and others before our committee in the weeks ahead. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

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

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

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, in 1988--almost 30 years ago--when Justice Kennedy was elected to the Supreme Court, President Reagan said: ``Every day that passes with a Supreme Court below full strength impairs the people's business in that crucially important body.'' President Reagan realized in 1988, during the last year of his Presidency, what President Obama realizes in 2016, the last year of his Presidency: that an eight-person Supreme Court runs counter to our national interest and runs counter, frankly, to the intent of our Founders, especially as we modernized the Supreme Court. There is a reason the Supreme Court--I believe for 150 years or something like that--has had an odd number of Justices, and that is so they can make decisions. Since Justice Scalia's death, we have seen the Supreme Court deadlock a couple of times, and when the Supreme Court deadlocks, it is as if the cases weren't even heard. It also means that if there are two different appellate cases that contradict one another, the Supreme Court would rule, as a referee would, to decide on the law of the land. When there is a vote of 4 to 4, it is as if there were no Supreme Court decision at all, and as a result, we have conflicting laws in different parts of the country. So you can live under one set of rules in Ohio and live a few miles away in Pittsburgh under another set of rules. As a result, this prolonged vacancy is damaging to our country's highest Court. Fifty cases remain on the docket for this term, and the Supreme Court is going to likely set a record for most tied votes. The 50 cases are for this term right now. When the Court meets again--according to Senator McConnell, it will be before Judge Garland is considered and brought up for a vote, if he is ever brought up for a vote--there will be another whole set of issues Judge Garland will not be able to rule on. We are really sentencing ourselves as a nation to a potential 4-to-4 vote on case after case after case, week after week after week, month after month after month, through two Supreme Court calendar years, for want of a better term. No term since 1990 has included more than two tied votes--a benchmark the Court has now hit in a single week. It means we have no national standard on important issues, and it diminishes the important role the Supreme Court plays in our country. It is part of a pattern that is damaging the judiciary. Last year the Senate confirmed just 11 Federal judges--the fewest in any year since 1960. It is the fewest in almost six decades. Chief Judge Garland's qualifications are without question. The President really did reach across party lines--reaching into the center aisle, perhaps--in choosing Judge Garland. He picked somebody who is significantly older as a nominee, which is something most Presidents don't want to do. They want to pick somebody in his or her forties or early fifties so they have--at least mathematically--the opportunity to serve more years. He picked somebody who had Republican support in the past and has had glowing things said about him by people like the former judiciary Republican chairman, Senator Hatch. His qualifications are without question, but in the end, the Senate has said they don't want to do their job. The last time there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court for more than a year was during the Civil War, and it was because we were in a civil war. The last time a Republican Senate ratified or confirmed a Democratic Presidential nominee on the Supreme Court was 1895. This is a Senate that needs to do its job. When I hear Senator McConnell say he doesn't care and will not do anything until the next election, well, we had an election. President Obama was elected to a 4- year term--not a 3-year term and not three-fifths of a term but a 4- year term. He is doing his job. The Constitution says that the President shall nominate and the Senate shall advise and consent. The Senate needs to meet with this nominee--and I will meet with Judge Garland tomorrow--the Senate needs to have hearings on Judge Garland, and the Senate then needs to bring him to a vote. Of the eight Supreme Court Justices sitting on the Court today, the average time was 66 days to confirm that Justice. This President still has close to 300 days left in his term. There is plenty of time to do that. Pure and simple, the Senate needs to do its job. It is incredible to the country, and it is incredible to all of us who really love this institution and think our government should work--and does work most of the time--that Senators are so dug in that most of my Republican colleagues will not even meet with Judge Garland. None of them, except for a couple of courageous exceptions, called for hearings. I believe only one or two said we should vote on his confirmation. The country doesn't understand why Republicans are failing to do their jobs. It is important, election year or not, that the Congress do its job. The Steel Industry Mr. President, for generations our steelworkers and manufacturers have made the steel that built this country. Manufacturers are the cornerstone of our economy. We know that every dollar invested in manufacturing adds an additional $1.48 to the economy, but our steel industry is being left behind. Years of outsourcing and years of illegal dumping--dumping means foreign competitors will sell steel into the United States below the cost of production so it is just impossible to compete on price or quality with them--have taken their toll on our companies and our workers. I want to read a letter I got this year from a group of Ohio steelworkers. I want to read one that I chose to read from this. Thomas Kelling wrote: As of January 11, 2016, there are 12,000 steelworkers laid off. I am one of them. When you include other manufacturers that deal with steel--aluminum, refractory, etc.--there are 35,000 men and women out of work. Thousands of immigrants came to this country looking for work years ago, and the steel industry supplied them with work. Without the steel industry, the country would not be what it is today. Every building, car, motorcycle, bridge, and so on is made of steel. The steel industry has taken a big hit because of illegal dumping by China, Korea, India, and Italy, among others. These countries subsidize their companies-- I would add--he didn't say this in the letter--sometimes these companies are State owned and subsidized by the State. These countries subsidize their companies so they are able to sell steel at a much lower cost, which in turn causes the U.S. steel industry to decline--hurting thousands of families, and the economy in general. Mr. Kelling is right. It is time for us to stand up for American steel manufacturers and workers who play by the rules but drown under a sea of illegal, subsidized imports. Far too many politicians seem content to throw up their hands and write off the industry and say: Well, that is an old industry. We can buy our steel from somewhere else. They seem to assume that because it is a tough problem, because it is complicated, it is not even worth trying to fix. Imagine if we had said that about the auto industry. I know what this body did. I know there was a lot of Republican opposition. Some Republicans like Senator Voinovich, my colleague from Ohio back then, were supportive. Most of my Republican colleagues tried to block the Bush administration--a fellow Republican. Then with the Obama administration, they really dug in in opposition to the auto rescue. We know what happened. Chrysler posted 7 percent gains in sales last year. GM and Ford were not far behind with 5 percent. More vehicles were sold in 2015 than at any time in American history. When that number had dropped close to 10 million, it was back up to 16 million vehicles. That is a lot of autoworker jobs in Ohio at Chrysler, Ford, GM, and Honda. It is also a lot of autoworkers' supply chain jobs--some union, some not, some autoworker union, some other unions, some nonunion, but thousands of jobs in the supply chain making glass and tires and all kinds of hubcaps and metal tops--hard tops for the Chrysler, whatever they are--in gear shifts and transmissions and engines in plants all over Ohio. So don't tell me we can't save the steel industry. Don't tell workers like Thomas Kelling it isn't worth saving. There are concrete steps to enforce a level playing field. We enacted a law last year to make it easier to petition our government when foreign producers are cheating on the rules. We know this happens all too often, especially in this industry, because so many countries around the world have their own steel industry. Some don't even use much of the steel they make but know they have a country--us--where they can dump the steel. This law is only as strong as its enforcement. The Commerce Department needs to apply so-called adverse facts available, or AFA, in trade cases where a foreign company is not cooperating. If we don't apply adverse facts when it is warranted, we allow countries and companies that are cheating to get away with violating the law at the expense of our companies, at the expense of workers in Lorain, Niles, Youngstown, and Middletown--all over our State and all over our country. Second, we need to fully fund the Office of Enforcement and Compliance. This office investigates charges of illegal subsidies and dumping by foreign producers. There are so many violations, this office is overwhelmed. Trade investigations are lengthy. They are difficult. They are labor intensive. We are a Nation of laws. We enforce laws. We enforce rules. We follow laws. We follow the rules so that we can play fair on trade cases, but that takes time and expertise, and that is why we need to fund the Office of Enforcement and Compliance. Third, the administration needs to do everything in its power to address global overcapacity, particularly from China. It is the single biggest challenge facing our domestic steel industry. China has excess steelmaking capacity of 300 million metric tons. Was does that mean? They can make 300 million metric tons more than they use in their country. What does that mean? That means they are looking for a market, and they are willing to subsidize their steel production to dump their steel into Ohio, into Detroit, in auto plants, and dump their steel where we build roads, bridges, and appliances. Last year, China exported more steel than the total tonnage of steel produced by U.S. manufacturers. Think of that. Chinese capacity in steelmaking is about the same as the rest of the world combined. As I said, China exported more steel last year than the total tonnage of steel produced by U.S. manufacturers. No wonder our companies face such serious challenges. China is the single biggest contributor in excess capacity, but the problem is spreading elsewhere. The Chinese have committed to reducing steel production, but have failed to follow through. Our steel industry has done the right thing. Our industry restructured to a sustainable model a decade ago--competitive, smart, productive--but it is now under threat again from Chinese imports. We have to file complaints and petitions against this unfair competition. These cases take too long. To stop the flood of cheap illegal imports once and for all, we need a permanent shutdown of production in countries where the steel industry is not driven by the market. Let me give you an example. South Korea was making something called oil country tubular goods, OCTG. These are pipes made for drilling, for fracking, for drilling for oil and gas. It makes sense, right? Except South Korea didn't have a domestic industry. They used not one of these steel pipes that they manufacture. What were they doing? They were selling them under cost to the United States. They basically created an industry to make steel, to dump that steel in the United States and keep their workers going at the expense of our companies and our workers. We won trade cases against them, but it often took long, and by the time we won these cases, a lot of damage was done to those companies and those workers. Finally, renegotiate the auto rules of origin, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. These provisions determine how much of a car is made in these 12 countries of the Trans-Pacific Partnership regions. Unfortunately, the TPP rules of origin are even weaker than they were in the North American Free Trade Agreement. What does that mean? That means only 40 percent of an auto sold in a TPP country needs to be made in TPP countries. So what that means is that more than 50 percent of the components for a newly made car can come from China sold into the United States or Mexico or Canada or any of the 12 countries with no tariffs. The whole point of the Trans-Pacific Partnership is to strengthen the auto supply chain and strengthen these countries' economies, but the way our negotiators did it was to drop the percentage components--the so-called rules of origin--from 60-some percent to 40-some percent so China could backdoor. Think about this: 35,000 women and men out of work--35,000 families have been forced to have terrible conversations around the kitchen table. They have to sell their house. Maybe they are going to get foreclosed on because they are not working. They have to cut back on sports at the local school because, frankly, of a State government in our State that underfunds schools. If kids want to play sports--no matter if they are low-income kids--they have to pay for it. There was nothing like that when I was growing up, but it is a different world. We have a State government that doesn't respond in so many ways to the concerns of young parents that they have to come up with money. They can't do that now. They have lost their jobs. All of this impacts families. The bad news doesn't stop with family layoffs. These conversations don't stop with mom and dad getting laid off. They lead to mom having to take a second job at night and to selling a car to save the house from being foreclosed. Mr. Kelling writes: ``The livelihood of thousands are counting on you.'' I ask my colleagues to think about what that means. That doesn't just mean their income and job; it is so much more important than that. It is the ability to put food on the table, send their kids to college, and save something for retirement. It is the difference between a thriving community and a dying community. We can't stand by and watch communities turn to ghost towns because foreign competitors don't play by the rules. It means we have to take action that levels the playing field and holds our trading partners accountable. If the administration doesn't take bold, decisive action soon, we will get thousands more letters, as do more and more of my colleagues who also get these letters. Thousands more workers like Thomas are going to lose their livelihoods, and our country will be worse off because of that. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you to my colleagues for the terrific work they have done on such an important issue, which in my State sort of began in the most rural of the areas of the State and spread and spread and spread. This is the right kind of comprehensive response for this, but as Senator Whitehouse just said, it means real funding for CARA and what we are doing. I am pleased we are coming together in a bipartisan way overall, finally taking action on the opioid epidemic that is devastating communities across our country. We know some of the statistics. More people died in my State than in the country as a whole in 2015 from opioid overdoses rather than they did from auto accidents. We are experiencing a record number of fatal overdoses. There is no State and probably county untouched by the scourge. We need to remember the human cost of addiction. In Warren, OH, a couple of weeks ago, there was middle-age woman who now has a child now in his midtwenties who has suffered addiction for a dozen years, has been in and out and is doing better, and then falls back. His family is affluent, so his treatment has been better than some. But she says that when there is an addiction, it afflicts the whole family. Nobody is really exempt. In my State, 2,500 Ohio families in one year lost a loved one to addiction. Thousands more continued to struggle with opioid abuse or with a family member's addiction. It is not an individual problem or a character flaw. It is a chronic disease. Right now, it is placing an unbearable burden on families and communities in our health care system. That is why we need to tackle this at the national level. It is why I am encouraged to see us debate this Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, or the CARA Act. The ideas in this bill are an important first step in tackling the epidemic, but they are just the first step. On their own they are not nearly enough to put a dent in this epidemic. The initiatives are going to mean very little--and here is the key point that both Senator Casey and Senator Whitehouse made-- without additional funding to back them up. My colleagues Senator Shaheen of New Hampshire and Senator Whitehouse introduced an amendment that would have provided an additional $600 million to fight the opioid epidemic. That would be a serious commitment in putting the ideas in this bill into place into action. But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle blocked this investment. Again, they want to do things on the cheap. They want to pass things to pat ourselves on the back but not provide the funding to actually accomplish things. It would block the investment in health professionals and communities who are on the frontlines of this battle. You simply can't do a roundtable with health professionals and people working toward recovery and families affected by it without hearing from them. They need resources locally. The States aren't coming up with it adequately. They need resources, and they need real investment in prevention programs. We need real investment in treatment options to help patients not just get cured and get clean but stay clean. Earlier this year, I introduced the Heroin and Prescription Drug Abuse Prevention and Reduction Act with my colleague Senator Baldwin of Wisconsin. Our bill would boost prevention efforts that would improve tools for crisis response. It would expand access to treatment, and it would provide support for lifelong recovery, the kind of serious investment we need to back up our rhetoric. In public health emergencies, we are sometimes, somehow able to come up with necessary money--swine flu, Ebola, Zika virus. But addiction is not a public health emergency. Addiction is a public health problem, but one we need to fund in an ongoing way. You can look at the spike in the number of deaths. You can conclude nothing else but that it is a long-term public health problem. Too many lives have been destroyed. Too many communities have been devastated. I am just puzzled why my colleagues won't come up with $600 million for this very important public health program. It is time to get serious. It is time to call it what it is--the public health crisis that demands real and immediate investment, not more empty rhetoric, not more empty gestures. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, last week I met with Rita Lewis of Westchester, OH, in southwest Ohio. She was here to testify in front of the Senate Committee on Finance in honor of her late husband Butch. Butch worked as a trucker for 40 years with the promise that the pension he earned would be there to care for his family after he retired. I would also add that Butch had been drafted by the Pittsburgh Pirates to play baseball some 45 years ago. Instead, he enlisted to go into the U.S. Army and on to Vietnam. He was injured and could never play baseball again competitively. He came back and became a trucker and joined the Teamsters. As I said, he worked as a trucker for 40 years with the promise that the pension he earned would be there to care for his family after he retired. But for Butch and Rita and thousands more Ohio retirees, that promise is under threat. Truckers and mine workers in Ohio and across the country are facing crippling cuts to the benefits they have earned. The Multiemployer Pension Reform Act that Congress passed 2 years ago allows pension trustees to propose massive cuts to the earned benefits of retirees when a plan is running low on funds. This is disgraceful. If a pension fund is in bad shape, it is our job to fix it, not break promises to American workers who have worked their whole lives to earn that pension. I believed that 2 years ago when I voted against that law which allowed these proposed cuts, and I believe it more strongly now. That is why I am calling on the Treasury Department to reject and to reject immediately the proposed cuts to the Central States Teamsters' pension. I am calling for us to immediately mark up and pass the Miners Protection Act, which will protect the benefits Ohio workers earned over a lifetime of work. Under MEPRA, the bill I talked about a moment ago, multiemployer pension trustees such as Central States are now able to propose massive cuts to the earned benefits of participants and retirees if the plans are in ``critical and declining status.'' Pension trustees for plans in ``critical and declining status'' may submit an application for proposed benefit cuts to the U.S. Treasury Department. The Central States pension plan trustees used the authority of MEPRA to propose cuts of as much as 70 percent, but in their own application, they admit that even with these drastic cuts, their plan--get this-- still only has a 50.4-percent chance of remaining solvent. In other words, they are asking Treasury to approve massive, life-shattering cuts to hundreds of thousands of workers for what amounts to a coin flip. Treasury should immediately reject this application. Put yourself--this is something we don't do well around here--put yourself in the place of a worker who has planned for her retirement with her family. She expected a $2,000-a-month pension on top of $1,200 a month in Social Security, and she all of a sudden finds out her pension is cut 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 percent. That was the money she planned to live on. She has some savings, but all that was calculated because it was a promise from this pension plan to honor that commitment of decades earlier. As I said, Treasury should immediately reject this application. The mine workers' pension plan and the others are too far gone to use MEPRA. The United Mine Workers of America's 1974 pension plan covers 100,000 mine workers, including thousands of miners in eastern and southern Ohio. It was almost completely funded before the financial collapse of 7 years ago brought on by Wall Street overreach and greed, but the plan was devastated by the recession. It has too few assets, too few employers, and too few union workers paying in. If Congress fails to act, thousands of retired miners could lose their health care this year and the entire plan could fail as early as next year. There is a bipartisan solution that is proposed by Senator Manchin, Senator Casey, me, and others and supported by leaders of both parties. If it were brought to the floor today, it would pass with an overwhelming majority. It is time for the Senate to act. The Committee on Finance should mark up this legislation this week. The Senate should bring it to the floor immediately. Miners worked in dangerous jobs--dangers from a mining accident, an explosion, or a collapse every day when they went to work, and dangerous in the sense that so many mine workers die early because of premature bronchial illnesses and heart ailments brought on by working in the mines. They have worked underground their whole lives to put food on the table, to send their kids to school, and to help power this country. Truckers criss-cross the State and country to pay their bills and support their families and drive our economy forward. They all deserve the full pension and health benefits they were promised and they worked a lifetime to earn. Butch Lewis led the Southwest Retirees Pension Committee's fight against cuts to their earned benefits. He passed away on New Year's Eve due to a stroke, which doctors have attributed at least in part to the stress he faced over the proposed pension cuts not just to him and his family but to the workers he was fighting for as a union activist. The benefits to his widow, his wife Rita, have already been cut. She faces an additional 40-percent reduction because of the proposed cuts put forth by Central States. Butch said the cuts being forced on retirees--his words--``amount to a war against the middle class and the American dream.'' He is right. Ohio's retired workers have earned their pensions and their retirement savings over a lifetime of hard work. It was promised to them, whether they worked behind a desk, on the factory floor, down in the coal mines, or behind a wheel. We should honor Butch's memory by continuing his work. That means coming together to support a bipartisan solution to protect Rita's benefits and the pensions of tens of thousands of retired Teamsters and retired mine workers. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, earlier this week and last week I joined a number of my colleagues on the floor and spoke at length about the need for our fellow Senators on the other side of the aisle to do something simple--to do their jobs.