Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be despensed with.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the Brown-Casey-Wyden-Stabenow-Hirono amendment would permanently extend the Medicaid expansion matching rate at 100 percent. It would help strengthen Medicaid for 71 million Americans who rely on this program for quality, affordable health insurance. Because of the ACA, more Americans can access comprehensive affordable care. Because of the Affordable Care Act, people in my State--600,000 Ohioans--now have Medicaid and affordable health insurance, in addition to other provisions of ACA. The best way to support States that have expanded Medicaid is by making the enhanced FMAP permanent. Mr. President, that means States will now bear none of the cost of Medicaid expansion. We would pay for this amendment by closing corporate tax loopholes. It would provide States with fiscal security and free up State Medicaid budgets, as I have heard Senator Alexander talk about so often. It would free up State Medicaid budgets for higher education and other kinds of State expenditures. I encourage my colleagues to do the right thing and provide health care and to do smart budgeting.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, America's infrastructure was once the envy of the world. But for decades, we haven't maintained these public works. The quality of U.S. infrastructure now ranks just 16th in the world, according to the World Economic Forum. The dismal state of our outdated roads, bridges, and railways is costing Ohioans valuable time, money, and energy. To create jobs and keep America on top of the global economy, Congress must pass a long-term bill that invests in a world-class infrastructure. The bill that the Senate will soon consider does not contain the robust investment that the President and most experts think we need, but it does make progress over the next 5 years. In Ohio, a quarter of our bridges are ``structurally deficient'' or ``functionally obsolete.'' Forty-five percent of our State's major urban highways are congested, costing our drivers $3.6 billion a year in additional repairs and operating costs. During the negotiations on this legislation, I fought to include provisions important to Ohio, and we have made progress on my State's top priorities. The bill would create a new competitive grant program to fund job- creating projects of regional and national significance, like the replacement of the Brent Spence Bridge between Cincinnati and Kentucky. Each year, 4 percent of America's GDP crosses the Brent Spence, which was built more than half a century ago. Replacing this bridge isn't just a top priority for the region's business community--it is a safety issue for the hundreds of thousands of cars that drive over it every week. The bridge would be eligible for funds from the $800 million per year pot of funding, which would grow to $1 billion annually in fiscal year 2020. It is a big win for the Brent Spence project and Ohio jobs. The legislation would also boost funding for Ohio's highway and transit programs. Nationwide, overall highway spending would increase by 15 percent compared to current law, and annual transit spending would grow 18 percent. By 2020, that growth will deliver more than $200 million of new highway investment to Ohio each year. In addition to repairing roads, the bill will help Ohio's many transit agencies, providing up to $20 million of new funds each year. In Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Columbus, our transit systems carry more than 250,000 passengers every day. The bill also provides up to $340 million annually for a new competitive bus program I championed. This was a top priority for Ohio's transit providers, and I am pleased they will have a much-needed source of funding for bus replacement. And as a long-time supporter of Buy America, I am pleased that the legislation would increase the amount of American-made steel and other components that will go into buses and subway cars. The bill also would finally reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, which is critical to helping Ohio companies create jobs and sell their products around the world. After some on the far right allowed the Ex-Im Bank to expire in June--for the first time in the Bank's history--we heard stories of lost contracts, risks to future export business, and manufacturing jobs moving out of the United States to Canada and Europe. This is about ensuring that U.S. manufacturers can be competitive in a global marketplace. While we argued about funding U.S. infrastructure and allowed the Ex- Im Bank to expire, China announced that its export-import bank will provide a $78 billion credit line to China Railway Corp to support its infrastructure projects at home and abroad. With countries like Brazil and China investing in 21st century transportation systems, we cannot let the U.S. fall behind. This is no way to run a global economic power. In addition to renewing Ex-Im, the Transportation bill also contains important provisions for community banks and credit unions. It includes changes to the bank exam cycle for small banks, a bill that Senators Donnelly and Toomey introduced. It streamlines privacy notices for financial institutions--a bill that Senator Moran and I introduced last Congress and that had the support of 97 other senators and which Senators Heitkamp and Moran reintroduced this year. The bill also allows privately insured credit unions to become members of the Federal Home Loan Bank System, a proposal I introduced last Congress and Senators Donnelly and Portman spearheaded this Congress. Since May, Senate Democrats have been pushing for a package of modest, bipartisan proposals like these to help community banks and credit unions. We have resisted efforts to rollback important Wall Street reforms. The House agreed with this approach, and that is why these provisions were added to the Transportation bill. So when you hear that we need to attach ``community bank regulatory relief'' to must-pass appropriations legislation, don't believe it. Relief for small banks and credit unions is already in the Transportation bill. Let me be clear: I will not support riders to undermine Wall Street reforms in legislation to fund the government. Like any bill of this significance, the long-term transportation measure isn't perfect. I have strong concerns with the process that led to this agreement and with some of the proposals used to pay for it. I think it was a mistake to tap Federal resources that have nothing to do with transportation to cover the bill's cost. Under this bill, we are funding highways in part by taking money from banks and the Federal Reserve. It is a bad precedent. We made real improvements to the bill's language on the use of the Federal Reserve Banks surplus fund and to the rate of the dividend paid to banks over $10 billion. But these pay-fors are not a sustainable way to fund transportation projects. Instead of this shortsighted approach that just delays the problem, Congress should be looking for a long-term solution to replenish the highway trust fund. I will support this bill because it is the best option we have right now to keep America on top of the global economy and provide the investment that Ohio needs. But I hope that Congress won't lose sight of the need to identify long-term, robust investment in world-class infrastructure.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I wish to add to the comments of Senator Murphy in opposition to that amendment. I wish to also to point out that one of the previous speakers bemoaned the number of hospitals that have closed in his State over the last 10 years. I bemoan them too. I also know that more of those hospitals would have closed if the Affordable Care Act hadn't passed. More of those hospitals would have closed if, in States like mine, the Governor didn't expand Medicaid. We know that in States where rural hospitals have closed-- particularly if there was a Republican Governor--the hospital association and many, many, many health care providers of all kinds, including nurses, physical therapists, and others, asked the Governor of that State to expand Medicaid so these hospitals could stay in business and keep serving rural people. This issue is not just about the rural poor people in South Carolina, but rural middle-class people who had insurance and were paying, but those hospitals couldn't stay open because they didn't have the revenues coming in. If Governors from those States had actually expanded Medicaid--as was the intent of the Affordable Care Act--instead of scoring political points, many of those hospitals would not have had to close. I thank Senator Murphy for his efforts. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about an amendment that I will not offer at this time but will probably offer later today about Medicaid--again, to help perfect the Affordable Care Act. Since the passage of the health law, Medicaid expansion has helped 600,000 Ohioans--many for the first time in their lives--in my State have health coverage just because of Medicaid's expansion. That is why the amendment I will offer will permanently extend the Medicaid expansion Federal matching rate at 100 percent. Some Governors--I think a bit disingenuously, but at least they are saying it--didn't expand Medicaid because the States will eventually have to pay up to 10 percent, even though the State gets all kinds of economic benefits, not to mention the humanitarian concerns that it addresses. Nonetheless, my amendment will make it 100 percent--no more excuses, first of all, to refuse to expand Medicaid. At a time when some are looking to halt support for Medicaid, we should be increasing that support. Since its enactment in 1965, Medicaid served as a lifeline for millions of Americans ranging from children and pregnant women to seniors who almost certainly would otherwise not afford nursing home care without it. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act--while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are attempting to dismantle it--States now have the option to expand Medicaid the way Governor Kasich, the Republican Governor of my State did, including nonelderly adults without children. Thirty States, including the District of Columbia and, as I said, my State of Ohio, have taken up Medicaid expansion, and it has obviously mattered to a whole lot of people. Federal Medical Assistance Percentages, which determine how much the Federal Government will pay for covered services in the State Medicaid programs, were increased for States that chose to expand their Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Under the health law, States that expand their Medicaid programs receive an enhanced Federal reimbursement for the costs incurred by newly eligible enrollees. That matching rate will phase down from 100 percent to 90 percent in 2020. My amendment would make the enhanced FMAP, the Medicaid expansion reimbursement, permanent. It is paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes. States that have expanded Medicaid have experienced significant drops in the number of uninsured. They have realized budget savings and cut the cost of uncompensated care for hospitals. The number of hospitals I have visited recently, including the hospital in which I was born, Medcentral in Mansfield, are bringing in more patients who are paying because of Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act and fewer patients for which they are uncompensated, thereby having to cut costs a little bit less and making that hospital easier to manage. Too often hospitals have to cut patient services when they have to cut their costs. We should continue to support States that have done right and expanded access. We can do this by maintaining their current FMAP rates. This policy will provide States with financial security. It will free up State Medicaid budgets to address other Medicaid needs, such as increased access to mental health services or the higher costs of prescription drugs. With millions of Americans falling into the coverage gap in nonexpansion States--those couple of dozen States that have refused to expand Medicaid even though the Federal Government pays for almost all of it--this policy is likely to help encourage expansion of Medicaid in those States. As I said, Ohio is one of the first States to accept Federal funds. I thank Governor Kasich, the Republican Governor of Ohio, for doing that. Without expansion, Ohioans would have fallen through the cracks by making too much for traditional Medicaid but too little to qualify for subsidies in the insurance marketplace. Now these individuals, including 600,000 in Ohio, have affordable coverage. I don't understand how people who represent my State in the House or Senate can vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act when they have 600,000 people in Ohio who have insurance--and that is just the Medicaid part--let alone the hundreds of thousands of others. How can they vote to take away their insurance? Do they know those people? Do they ever look those people in the eye and say: Sorry; I am scoring a political point. I will vote against the Affordable Care Act. Sorry; you are going to lose your insurance, but maybe we will do something down the road to help you. Under these new provisions, 24,000 Medicaid enrollees in Ohio are being treated for cancer. These include Ohioans like Pamela Harris, the mother of four children. She had no health insurance before the State expanded Medicaid--again giving credit to Republican Governor Kasich-- and she found herself having to choose between paying for utility bills or medication. After her first stroke, Ms. Harris was unable to afford followup care and physical therapy, but when she survived her second stroke, her recovery was much better. Why? Because she was eligible for health insurance through Ohio's Medicaid expansion. There are so many reasons to do this. Mr. President, 2015 marks the 50th anniversary of Medicaid. We should be strengthening the program that provides good quality health insurance to millions of Americans, including hundreds of thousands of people in Wyoming, Tennessee, South Carolina, and my State of Ohio. We should do that and not vote to take it away. I will offer the amendment later. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Another way to fight this war on terrorism and to help our efforts on fighting ISIS is to actually put the people in place in the U.S. Government who help us do that. I came to the floor today to join Senator Casey--my friend from Pennsylvania who is going to mention him too--and to support the nomination of Adam Szubin. Adam Szubin has been delayed for more than 200 days by Republican obstruction in the Senate banking committee. Well, who is Adam Szubin? Adam Szubin has been nominated--listen to this job--to be the Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes at the Treasury Department. This isn't a low-level employee who has nothing to do with ISIS, fighting ISIS, and fighting terrorism; this is the No. 1 person in the Treasury Department--perhaps the No. 1 person in our whole government next to the Commander in Chief--who is in the position to fight terrorism and fight the kinds of financial crimes that ISIS depends on to fund its operations. We had a hearing. Originally Mr. Szubin worked for the Bush administration for a number of years. He has been serving interim during the Obama administration, but my colleagues on the banking committee, my colleagues in the Senate, simply have refused to bring Mr. Szubin to a vote. He served Republican and Democratic administrations in senior positions. There is no question, zero question, that he is qualified for this position. Let me tell you a little more about him. In 15 years he has distinguished himself as a tough, aggressive enforcer of our Nation's sanction laws--not against England or Germany--but against countries such as Iran, Russia, North Korea, against money launderers, against terrorists, against narcotraffickers, the source of a good bit of the money for terrorist groups such as ISIS. Republicans say the administration is not doing enough; Barack Obama won't stand up. Well, the Republicans are blocking this appointment that would give the President the tools he needs to fight terrorism. Again, more about Mr. Szubin, he earned his undergraduate and law degrees with high honors, he was a Fulbright scholar in Israel before joining the Department of Justice. As I said, he served with President Bush and with President Obama; he was counsel to the Deputy Attorney General. He worked as trial attorney on the Terrorism Litigation Task Force. He received the Department of Justice Special Commendation Award for his work countering terrorism. For 9 years he directed the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control. Many of us first came to know him then--in both parties--as a thoughtful policymaker and superb lawyer. Both parties respected him until Barack Obama nominated him; then Republicans seemed to forget how good he was and how qualified he was. The Anti-Defamation League in this letter described him as an ``intellectual heavyweight who has worked effectively with global partners to amplify the effects of U.S. sanctions.'' The United Against Nuclear Iran, a group that strongly opposed the President's deal with Iran, supports Mr. Szubin to be promoted, to be confirmed by the Senate. Many of my colleagues on the banking committee said: We are not going to confirm Szubin because he was for the Iran nuclear deal. Well, he worked for the President of the United States, who was negotiating it. Of course, he was for it. But are they going to oppose him because they don't like what his boss did or are they opposing him because they don't like much of anything President Obama did? The fact is that group after group, whether they are for the Iran nuclear agreement or against it--it really doesn't matter--supports Mr. Szubin. His mentor, Bush Under Secretary Stuart Levy--his mentor and his predecessor, not immediate predecessor but predecessor--was confirmed by the Senate 3 weeks after his nomination. But you know what, both parties then with President Bush recognized that you confirm somebody who is central to the war on terrorism. Republicans then believed that. Today, with a Democratic President, even though Adam Szubin is supported by darn near everybody--with his qualifications, with his support and work in two administrations--they don't want to bring him forward for a vote. I am not even sure why. I hear all kinds of reasons, none of them really on the record, none of them official, from my colleagues. Oh, they don't like President Obama or this guy must be a bad guy because President Obama appointed him or he was part of the government when the nuclear agreement with Iran was negotiated. All of these reasons simply don't pass a straight-face test. This is a critical national security post, and it needs to be filled permanently and quickly. Mr. Szubin heads what is, in effect, Treasury's economic war room. It manages U.S. efforts to combat terrorist financing and fight financial crimes. Again, ISIS, ISIL, gets a good bit of its funding through illegal activities like that. If the U.S.--and if Mr. Szubin has the full range of powers that we have given him in the Congress, he can help us fight that kind of financing, stop that kind of financing for ISIS. He is helping to lead the charge to choke off their funding sources to prevent them from developing additional capacity to strike more targets around the world. He is working to hold Iran to its commitments under the nuclear deal and to lead a campaign against the full range of Iran's other destructive activities. He is supported by the Global Jewish Advocacy and, as I said earlier, by the Anti-Defamation League and by United Against Nuclear Iran. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the documents from the organizations I just mentioned.

Mr. BROWN. He has support across the political spectrum--or at least he did until he was nominated by this President. I serve on the banking committee with Chairman Shelby. I sit next to him as the ranking member. I like Senator Shelby. I work with Mr. Shelby day-by-day on many things. He has described Mr. Szubin as ``eminently qualified.'' He has served with distinction in senior national security roles--I will say it again--for 15 years under Presidents of both parties. He is well regarded around the world for his intellect, courage, and expertise. He deserves the strong backing of the Senate. Republicans in Congress need to stop holding our national security apparatus hostage to political demands. They should allow--we should allow Adam Szubin and other national security nominees to be approved as soon as possible. Again, strip the partisanship away. Do what is right: Confirm Adam Szubin; confirm these other national security people. They aren't controversial. The only thing controversial about these nominations is that Barack Obama made them. Well, the last time I checked, he was elected President of the United States twice, including my No. 1 swing State in the country--the hardest one to win, the one that both parties fight for in every election. He carried my State twice. He carried my State by over 100,000 votes. He is the President of the United States. He appointed Adam Szubin, who is eminently qualified, who has had support from both parties. Why don't my colleagues confirm him, giving him the full range of powers to fight ISIS, to keep ISIS from getting the resources and the financing they are getting now to launch these terrible terrorist crimes against innocent men and women all over the world? I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the best way to fight this war on terrorism is to give the President of the United States the tools he has asked for and he needs. Part of that is fully funding support for veterans. The Presiding Officer sits on the Veterans' Affairs Committee with me. He stood side by side with most of us on funding veterans programs. Some of my colleagues haven't. They are happy to send people off to war and spend all the money we need but are not so generous when it comes to taking care of our men and women when they return. There are higher suicide rates, higher head injury rates, higher drug addiction rates, and higher unemployment than regular civilians. Yet people in this body, especially the tea party in the House of Representatives, sometimes don't seem to be able to find the money to spend to help veterans.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, we acted on a measure I cosponsored to provide new authorities to the President to extend the wide array of existing U.S. sanctions on Hezbollah to any international banks determined by the Treasury Department to facilitate its activities. I commend my colleagues Senators Shaheen and Rubio for introducing an earlier form of this measure and for pressing to ensure Senate action on it. The bill also requires that a range of new policymaking information be provided to Congress from the administration on Hezbollah's malign activities, including its narcotics trafficking and other criminal activity and its terrorism-related and propaganda activity throughout the Middle East. Especially in the wake of the Iran nuclear agreement, which I supported and which is now being implemented, it is critical that we continue to do everything we can to shut down Iran's terrorist proxies like Hezbollah, and to impose powerful financial and other sanctions on those who enable its operational or financial networks. Hezbollah clearly has the potential to continue to threaten Israel, and this must continue to be an important focus of our efforts to confront it directly and to confront those who would finance and support its efforts wherever they may be. In addition, with regional and international spillover effects of the civil war in Syria, we must also keep in mind the damage being done by Hezbollah's extensive support of the dictatorial Assad government. The Assad government's violent suppression of the Syrian people's courageous campaign in early 2011 to secure their universal rights resulted in the murder of countless innocent Syrians. The violent crackdown of peaceful protesters and the denial of their legitimate democratic aspirations directly led to fledgling armed opposition groups throughout Syria. Since then, Hezbollah has provided training, logistics, and direct personnel to the Government of Syria's ruthless and criminal efforts to violently crush the opposition, driving many into the arms of extremist groups like ISIL and the Nusra Front. For years, Iran has provided Hezbollah with training, weapons, and explosives as well as political, diplomatic, monetary, and organizational aid. However, Hezbollah has been enterprising in supplementing its revenue stream through criminal activities like drug trafficking, money laundering, and counterfeiting among others. The Iran nuclear agreement was necessarily focused exclusively on preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That is because a nuclear-armed Iran would pose an exponentially greater danger to the security of the United States, our ally Israel, and the entire world. In my view, the agreement was the only viable option to prevent such a disastrous scenario. But now we must do more to confront Hezbollah, as part of our broader efforts to strengthen regional security and antiterrorism efforts in the Middle East. Our goal here is simple: to shut down Hezbollah's funding networks which support its terrorist, narco-trafficking, and other criminal activities. This bill gives the administration new tools to more aggressively pursue foreign banks that finance Hezbollah and requires key reporting to Congress on whether current efforts by other countries to combat Hezbollah's activities are adequate so that we might reassess our policy on an ongoing basis. In addition, it requires the administration to provide regular briefings for Congress on Hezbollah's narco- trafficking activities and other criminal activities, including prospects for explicit designation under the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act or as a transnational criminal organization. The bill imposes tough, targeted new sanctions measures on Hezbollah and its financiers, while minimizing unintended consequences against innocent third-party banks or countries that have worked hard to combat Hezbollah's reach. I am confident, for example, after consulting with State Department and Treasury officials, that the bill will be implemented to avoid overcompliance by U.S., European, and other financial institutions that could otherwise inadvertently damage Lebanon's banking sector, a key bulwark of its economy. That is especially important as Lebanon's economy is already under pressure, burdened with the highest number of refugees per capita in the world. I commend this bipartisan legislation to my colleagues. I thank Senators Shaheen and Rubio and Chairman Shelby for working with me to ensure its passage.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, this week we honor the men and women who serve our Nation with honor and their families who also sacrifice--whom we do not remember enough--who sacrifice so much for the servicemembers they love and for all of us in our country. The sacrifice of our veterans demands that we fulfill the promises we have made. This body is always willing to spend more dollars in armaments and on weapons, but when it comes time to fulfill our obligations to veterans, too many in this body are not generous enough. I am the only Ohioan ever to serve a full term on the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. I take that duty very seriously. I know the Presiding Officer, Senator Tillis from North Carolina, does too. That means working to end the VA backlog. It means putting a better system in place. It means ensuring that our veterans have a roof over their heads and a place to call home. It means providing veterans with health care and the educational opportunities they deserve and which they have earned. Too many veterans face mental health challenges that can end in tragedy. More than 8,000 veterans each year take their own lives--154 a week, 22 a day. Hundreds of thousands of veterans struggle with invisible injuries. Nearly 300,000 have been diagnosed with post- traumatic stress, and 300,000 have faced traumatic brain injuries--all because of the service they gave to us. Earlier this year we passed the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act. It is a good start yet not enough. We need to make sure that when servicemembers return home, they have the educational and the employment opportunities they need, not only to survive but to thrive. The GI bill's educational benefits are critical, but veterans, unfortunately, have a limited amount of time before their GI benefits expire. In crowded colleges--whether in North Carolina, Oklahoma or Ohio--general education requirements and prerequisites often fill up quickly. Many colleges and universities in my State offer priority registration to veterans. All of our colleges and universities need to follow Ohio's lead. That is why I worked with Senator Tillis, the Presiding Officer, on legislation to ensure that all veterans and servicemembers and their qualifying dependents can use their GI benefits to their full potential and be guaranteed priority registration. The Senator from North Carolina and I also introduced the Fry Scholarship Enhancement Act, which would expand eligibility for the VA's Yellow Ribbon Program to help students avoid out-of-pocket tuition and fees for programs that cost more than the allowance set by the post-9/11 GI bill. Sadly, for too many veterans, they are far from the goal where they should be. They struggle just to find a place to call home. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, some 50,000 veterans were homeless during a survey conducted on a single night in January 2014. That is 50,000 too many. It is a disgrace that after serving our country with honor, thousands of veterans are left without a roof over their heads. Earlier this month I visited the Joseph House in Cincinnati, where Nathan Pelletier and his team of dedicated staff and volunteers provide addiction treatment and traditional housing. A group of us meeting there, mostly veterans who are homeless or were homeless, listened to Britton Carter, who was formerly homeless. He completed his treatment program in the Joseph House. He now works as a case manager there helping other struggling veterans. Veterans such as Mr. Carter have served our country with honor. We owe them support, and we owe them counseling when they return home. That is why I joined my colleagues in introducing the Veteran Housing Stability Act of 2015, which would make meaningful improvements to services for homeless veterans that would give veterans more access to permanent housing opportunities. We know in the Veterans' Affairs Committee a number of things. We know that the unemployment rate of veterans is generally higher than society's unemployment rate. We know that veterans' suicide rate is higher than society's suicide rate. We know that veterans' drug addiction is higher than society's drug addiction rate. We know that veterans have suffered from PTSD and traumatic brain injury in numbers much higher than the general population. That is why we owe them so much. We in this body so rarely think about the cost of war. We, as I said earlier, are willing to send more money to buy more weapons, to spend more money in armaments. We are not so generous when it comes time to take care of our veterans.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Whitehouse. When I introduced Senator Whitehouse to the mayor of Cleveland and to a number of experts in Cleveland, from public health officials, to wind energy entrepreneurs, to community groups to whom climate change matters so much, I introduced him as probably--not just probably--there is no person in the Senate who has done a better job of focusing public attention on the threats of climate change and what it means to our way of life and what it means to our country. I thank Senator Whitehouse for that. I want to point to what happened in Toledo, OH, in 2011. This green color in this picture is algae bloom. This is a small boat that is making its way through the algae bloom. This wasn't even the year Toledo residents lost their water supply. In 2014--last August, 15 months ago--algae blooms were so serious in Lake Erie and in the western basin--Toledo is in the western basin of Lake Erie, Cleveland is sort of central, and then Ashtabula and Erie, PA, are in the eastern basin of Lake Erie. Again, this is not the most serious situation, although the algae bloom is so overwhelming here. This green is all algae bloom. The lake actually should be the color-- where you can see dark blue here, that is normally the color of the lake. We can see the wake of the boat, and that is the normal color of the lake, as the boat plowed through the algae bloom. The problem with Lake Erie is that it is the most vulnerable lake because it is the shallowest lake in the western basin of Lake Erie. In this part of Lake Erie, it is only 30 feet deep. It is fed by the Maumee River, which is the largest tributary of any river into any of the five Great Lakes. Keep in mind that it is 30 feet deep here, fed by farmland and commercial activity and industry and homeowners--greater Toledo in northwest Ohio. Contrast that with Lake Superior. It is 30 feet deep here, and Lake Superior is 600 feet deep on average. And Lake Superior mostly drains forests, so we can see why Cleveland and Toledo are so vulnerable to climate change and so vulnerable to pollution and all that has happened with the algae blooms. People in Toledo--500,000 people lost their drinking water for 2\1/2\ days. People were great, stepping up from all over southern Michigan, eastern Indiana, and northwest Ohio to ship in water for people. But it made such a--it says to us that climate change isn't the only reason this happened, but it is clearly happening. We are seeing this algae bloom worse and worse and worse in hot weather. One other thing about this Great Lake. Lake Erie is only 2 percent of all of the Great Lakes' water--five Great Lakes. Lake Erie is only 2 percent of all the Great Lakes' water because it is shallow and its surface areas are not as big as the others. Fifty percent of the fish of all of the Great Lakes are in Lake Erie because fish will produce and will prosper in shallower, warmer water, but the water was too warm because of climate change and all of the things that came out of that. In this meeting we had with Dr. Aparna Bole--a pediatric specialist at Cleveland's University Hospital--she talked about asthma rates. We heard from others too. I will turn it back to Senator Whitehouse and ask him what he learned from these meetings. He was not just in meetings with people in Cleveland learning about what climate change means there, he also went to the Stone Lab and he can tell us about that. Then he had an amazing meeting at Ohio State University with some of America's amazing climate scientists. I will kick it back to Senator Whitehouse and again thank him for traveling the country every single week and looking for places where climate change has done the most damage in terms that people can understand. His leadership is so important. I thank Senator Whitehouse for the work he has done, and I am so grateful he came to the city of Cleveland and joined us.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the last point I wish to make before turning to the Senator from Oklahoma is something that we call Honor Flights. One of the great things that have come out of the National World War II Memorial is that men and women who have served in World War II are now getting the opportunity to go to visit this National World War II Memorial. Retired Air Force Capt. Earl Morse, who worked in a VA clinic in Springfield, OH, would often talk with his World War II veteran patriots. He realized that for most of these veterans, their dream of seeing the memorial built on the National Mall would never come true. So one day in 2004, Captain Morse, a pilot and a member of the air club at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, asked one of his patients if he could personally fly him to Washington free of charge. The veteran, Mr. Loy, broke down in tears and accepted Earl's offer. Soon Earl was offering to fly other World War II veterans to visit the memorial and soliciting help from other pilots. Eleven pilots from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base volunteered. In May 2005, the first Honor Flight took off from Springfield, OH. A decade later, the Honor Flight Network is a national nonprofit that has flown 100,000 veterans, usually 40 or 50 or 60 at a time in a charter flight--always with a caretaker because these veterans are never young. They are World War II veterans. They have been out of the service now for 70 years at least. The Honor Flight Program is in 41 States. I have had the honor of meeting a number of them. Toledo, OH, seems to be one which has particularly excelled and is encouraging local people, raising local money and getting every single veteran from northwest Ohio who was able to and wanted to join these Honor Flights. I will quote one of these volunteers. Jim Salamon works for the Honor Flight Program in Dayton. He told me of a volunteer who goes by Ace and who works at an Arby's in Maryland and provides discounted meals for Honor Flight Program attendees. Jim said: Ace is part of Honor Flight Dayton's family. We rely on Ace and he has not let us down. Over the last nine years Ace has saved us more than $30,000 [because of Arby's donating these meals], which pays the cost of transporting 92 veterans. With an average of 800 World War II veterans dying each day, the mission of the Honor Flight Program is more important now than ever. I am thankful to those who have helped Honor Flight. I am thankful to those veterans and their families who have done so much. I remind my colleagues, as they are always eager to vote for more money for weapons, that we should understand and think about the cost of war and take care of our returning servicemembers. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I wish to recognize and congratulate Mr. Robert Park, director of the Portage County Veterans Service Commission, on his retirement after more than two decades of service to Ohio veterans. Mr. Park served 26 years in the naval service, retiring in 1997 as a chief aviation electronics technician, Aircrew. He flew more than 2,000 hours in a P-3 Orion aircraft, predominately as a radio operator with Combat Aircrew 6 in Patrol Squadron 93, where he was selected as ``Gold Wing Sailor of the Year.'' During his time with the Portage County Veterans Service Commission, VSC, Mr. Park worked directly with staff to help maintain a high- quality standard of service to veterans. Mr. Park advocated to significantly increase VA benefits for Portage County veterans. According to the Ohio Department of Veterans Services, for every dollar Portage County spends related to the VSC, veterans in Portage County receive $93.20 in benefits thanks to the work of Mr. Park. Mr. Park's dedication to veterans and military families in Portage County extends beyond his position at the Portage County VSC. Mr. Park also served as a board member for the Family and Community Services Freedom House, which is an organization that serves homeless veterans. Mr. Park is also a member of many veterans organizations, including the local Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion, and Disabled American Veterans chapters. Mr. Park also served statewide as second vice, first vice, and finally as president of the Ohio State Association of County Veterans Service Officers. He also worked for many years as an instructor for the Ohio Department of Veterans Services. Nationally, Mr. Park advocated for veterans as an executive board member, judge advocate, and instructor on the National Association of County Veterans Service Officers. Beyond his dedication to veterans, Mr. Park continues to support his community through involvement in organizations that help develop young people as future leaders. Mr. Park currently serves on the board of Access to Independence and the Rootstown Local School District. He also volunteers as an assistant coach for both baseball and soccer, as well as Cub Master and Scout Master for local Cub and Scout Troops. Mr. Park and his wife, Rebecca, have three children: David, Jonathan, and Rachel. Bob will be truly missed not only by his VSC family, but by the veteran community in Portage County and throughout the State of Ohio. Bob always gave his best to the veterans and families he served. I would like to thank Mr. Park for all his years of service, as a sailor and later as an advocate for veterans. I wish him all the best in his retirement.

Mr. BROWN

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

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, both of my parents spent their final days in hospice care. My father passed away a decade and a half ago at the age of 89. My mother was in hospice care for a few weeks--seemed to be long weeks, but a few weeks--and died at 88 6\1/2\ years ago. I saw firsthand how home care workers and hospice workers make a difference in someone's final days and the comfort they bring to families. During the last moments of my mom's life, people who didn't even know her showed incredible care and kindness, and helped to bring peace to her, comfort to her, and to our family. Last week I visited in my home city of Cleveland. Only a few miles away is the hospice Western Reserve, one of the best not-for-profit hospices in the entire Midwest. I held a roundtable with a number of employees who have made a career of caring for Ohioans reaching the end of their lives. Western Reserve's core values are: compassion, excellence, quality, integrity, service, and stewardship. Each worker there--from social workers to cooks to maintenance workers to nurses--embodies these traits. They work in what some might assume to be a sad environment. Many of the patients they care for die in a matter of days or weeks. Each day they encounter not only Ohioans who are near the end of life but they spend time with family members who are preparing to grieve for a loved one. Yet Hospice of the Western Reserve is far from being a depressing workplace. The staff is committed to caring for parents and families, and they imbue their work--and their patients and their workplace--with a fascinating joy of serving others. Hospice nursing assistant Audrey Boylan said to me: ``It's an honor to be here.'' Laquita Bradford, a dietary server, talked about the sense of ``togetherness'' among the staff. She compared it to an extended family. Workers spoke about other jobs they had elsewhere and all echoed the same sentiment: ``It's different here'' at the Hospice of the Western Reserve. As I said, it is one of the best not-for-profit hospices in the Midwest. Their compassion and commitment has a deep impact on their patients and their families and, frankly, on me in my visit. One of the social workers, Jennifer Stevens, spoke about how she helps families and patients understand where they are in their journey. A volunteer, Roz Fabrotta, a longtime teacher and now a volunteer for Hospice of the Western Reserve, spoke with passion about her work in the bereavement camp that the hospice runs for 6- to 12-year-olds who have lost loved ones. There is not any real revenue for that bereavement camp. That is what not-for-profit hospices often do. Western Reserve's Elisabeth Severance Bereavement Center is funded by raising money and is dedicated to helping families through these heart- wrenching situations. Its staff, for instance, provided counseling to families after the senseless shooting at Chardon High School in February of 2012, where several students were killed, and their practices were used as a model by counselors after the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook. Through all this work, these men and women maintain a positive atmosphere for each other and for those they serve. Keli Keyes is a nurse at the hospice. Her coworker and pet, Linus the therapy dog, who was with us at our roundtable, is a beautiful golden retriever who accompanies her to work each day. All he has to do to bring a smile to patients and family members is to snuggle up to them or put his nose up to their hands. Western Reserve has more than 3,000 volunteers. I think that tells you all you need to know about this place--that so many Ohioans are willing to take time out of their busy lives to be part of their community and to care for their fellow citizens. Alvin Fomby, who used to work at Quicken Loans Arena and used to know LeBron James, decided he would rather work at the hospice, where he could make a real difference in preparing food for families and people in hospice care. Janet Bildstein, who works at the Hospice of Western Reserve, grew up only a few blocks from there and has spent many years working at the hospice. Joe Tyler, who makes things work, reminded me of my father-in-law, who was a maintenance worker at Electric Utility Company in Ashtabula, OH, and he could fix anything. He carried a 12-foot wrench around with him at the powerplant and he could fix anything. Joe Tyler reminded me of that. He said he works under more pressure, which he loves, to fix something in a room immediately. If the air-conditioning or the heating or the electricity goes out or if something happens to a lamp, he needs to take care of these families right away. The men and women at this hospice are an inspiration to all of us, but they are not alone. Recognizing My Brother's Keeper Mr. President, last year President Obama launched the My Brother's Keeper challenge to expand opportunities for a group that is far too often left behind in this country--African-American boys and young men. The President reached out to cities across the country to find people committed to ensuring all Americans have access to the opportunities they deserve. One of the cities that rose to the occasion is Dayton, OH. I had the privilege last week of visiting one of America's great cities--Dayton--with its mayor, Nan Whaley, a young bright mayor. I also visited with Broderick Johnson, who is the chair of the My Brother's Keeper Task Force, and works in the White House with the President. We held a roundtable with policymakers and activists and citizens who had heeded this call to action. Dayton already, with Mayor Whaley and others, has a number of successful programs in place: Learn to Earn, City of Learners, and several mentorship programs. I heard the stories of mentors and their mentees, who make a real difference in the lives of so many. I met Belmont High School senior Miles Tidd. Miles grew up with a single mother and had a tough time early in high school. He wanted to drop out. Miles was matched with mentor Quinn Howard. Quinn wouldn't let Miles drop out. He was the stable figure in Miles' life, who clearly loves him and cares about him, and he pushes him to do better. Miles is close to graduating. After 3 years of Junior ROTC, he wants to join the Air Force Reserves and to go to the Citadel. I met Miles and Quinn at our roundtable at the Dayton Boys Preparatory Academy. Miles said that ``the best way to make yourself feel better is to look outside yourself, and go out of your way to help others.'' That seemed to be the theme of these young men, ages 15 to 20, who had been helped by a mentor. Their goal in life is to now turn around and help somebody younger than they are. Also at the roundtable was Alexander Worthy, who wore a Dayton ``Live With Honor'' T-shirt, referring to the campaign launched by the Dayton Community Police Council. The campaign asks Dayton residents to come together to combat a culture of violence and rethink what it means to live with honor. Alexander learned discipline and work ethic from his mentor, Bishop Mark McGuire. Bishop McGuire worked with Alexander to help him keep his summer job at their church, and Alexander now participates in the church's Young Life youth group. We also heard from mentor Terry Purdue. Terry is a Dayton native. He grew up with a lot of good folks around him, a strong father and mother, but still made plenty of mistakes. He now serves as a mentor and a police officer on Dayton's West Side. He formed a group called the Unit. The Unit holds free work-out classes 3 days a week downtown. Thousands have joined the Unit for a class, and at each one he asks participants to volunteer to help the Dayton community. The Unit takes on a new project each month. At one roundtable the mentors and mentees told their stories. One middle schooler, James Carr, was, at first, too shy to speak. Finally, after seeing other boys speak up, James raised his hand and talked about how he picks up trash around his school to keep it clean and helps special ed students at school. There is a boy in his class who is blind, and he helps him walk to lunch and to the bathroom. James talked about wanting to make good grades and most of all, he said, he just wants to ``stay normal.'' Think about that. This child wasn't even in high school yet, and for him it is a struggle to stay normal. That is why the work of My Brother's Keeper is so important. Mentors can provide a steady influence in the lives of children for whom living a stable life--one that those of us privileged enough to serve in this body would consider ``normal''--is a daily struggle. Frederick Douglass said that it is ``easier to build strong children than repair broken men.'' We need a strategy to allow our children to reach their full potential, not one that accepts that an entire segment of our citizens will grow up with limited options. It means ending disparities in our education system. It means continuing to work to reform our criminal justice system. It means working to rebuild the broken relationship between police departments in far too many cities and the communities they serve. It means taking steps to address the employment gap that exists between young men of color and other Americans. It means working to end the scourge of gun violence in our communities. It means providing those in our society who have made mistakes a second chance. I encourage all of my colleagues to support the work My Brother's Keeper is doing. We also have one in Columbus. We hope to see more of those in Ohio. It is up to all of us to ensure that all of our children, regardless of their ZIP code or the color of their skin, have the opportunity to succeed. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, today, I wish to honor Tom Brennan-- a long-time reporter and editor at my hometown paper, the Mansfield News Journal. This week, Tom will retire from the News Journal after a 43-year career in journalism. Tom and I are both natives of Richland County, OH. He has been with the News Journal since 1972 in various roles, so we have known each other for pretty much our entire careers. I have always had a bit of a soft spot for journalists--after all, I married one. And as with any journalist, Tom and I haven't always seen eye-to-eye on every issue, but I have always respected his integrity and the important service he provides to the Mansfield community. He has always been fair and civic minded and has taken seriously one of his most important jobs: holding politicians like me accountable. Through his leadership in the newsroom, Tom has not only demonstrated a deep passion for serving our community, he has also been a coach and mentor to so many men and women who have worked at the News Journal for the last 40 years. He has helped them to become accomplished writers and reporters and has helped ensure that the News Journal will continue his legacy of thoughtful, quality journalism. Over the past four decades, Tom has faced a changing news industry, and he has always responded with the best interest of his writers and the community in mind. The evolution of this business has put too many local papers out of business. But Tom and his team have been able to keep the News Journal in print, while reaching new audiences online, and that is a great accomplishment. Tom's impressive career in journalism isn't the only way he has served the Mansfield community. He has been active in many local organizations, including the Mansfield Children's Theater Foundation, the local chamber of commerce, the Richland County Economic Development Corporation, the North Central State College Foundation, and the Mansfield Military Affairs Committee. While he will be missed by many, I have little doubt that the end of his career will not be the end of his community engagement. I join his readers and newsroom staff in wishing him the best for a fulfilling retirement worthy of his honorable career.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, we have seen this movie before. It was 4 years ago that a drug company in St. Louis raised the price dramatically on a drug that was administered to pregnant women, a shot they took once a week for 20 weeks that significantly reduced the incidents of low birth weight babies. Now we see a headline on the front page of the New York Times today which reads ``A Drug Company's Price Tactics Pinch Insurers and Consumers.'' Two weeks ago another New York Times headline read ``Drug Goes From $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight.'' In April the Wall Street Journal ran an article titled ``Pharmaceutical Companies Buy Rivals' Drugs, Then Jack Up the Prices.'' The reporters who did the investigating in these articles all found the same thing: Pharmaceutical companies buy up the rights of older existing drugs where all the costs from research have been recouped and raise prices dramatically overnight. In its most recent article, the Times investigated Valeant Pharmaceuticals, a company that recently raised the cost of the lifesaving drug Cuprimine more than fivefold. The Times interviewed Mr. Bruce Mannes, a 68-year-old retired carpenter in Michigan who has relied on Cuprimine for 55 years to treat his Wilson's disease. In May Mr. Mannes was paying $366 a month for Cuprimine. Today he is forced to pay $1,800 a month just to stay alive. It is the same drug and the same dosage. It was $366 a month not too long ago. Today it is $1,800 a month just to stay alive. It is not just Mr. Mannes who is left on the hook to pay for his medicine, which has more than quadrupled in cost. The taxpayer-funded Medicare Program will now be spending $35,000 a month to cover its portion of his pills because current law prohibits Medicare--because of the power of the drug companies in this institution--from negotiating more favorable drug prices. Cuprimine is not a cure for Wilson's disease. Mr. Mannes must take this drug for the rest of his life. It doesn't cure him, but it keeps him alive. Valeant did nothing to improve this drug. They don't claim that. It has been around for decades. They have done nothing to invest in a cure. Instead, the company bought the rights to an existing medicine and raised its price. Remember, I said that in May Mr. Mannes was paying $366 a month. Today he is paying $1,800 a month. This story, unfortunately, is outrageous, and it is not an isolated story. The Times reports that this year alone Valeant has raised the price of its drugs by an average of 66 percent. When Valeant acquired Salix Pharmaceuticals earlier this year, it raised the price of its diabetic drug Glumetza by 800 percent. These are drugs that have been out there. They don't need to recoup their costs of research and development. These are drugs that have been used for many years at a significantly lower price. They buy these companies--these drugs and jack up the price. After Valeant acquired the drug Isuprel, which treats slow or irregular heart rate, it raised the price by more than $30,000. Valeant's investors and its billionaire CEO are, of course, getting rich but always on the backs of America's seniors and American taxpayers, who pay the price. Seniors on Medicare face skyrocketing bills for lifesaving drugs they cannot afford. Insurance companies sometimes stop covering drugs altogether. Janis, from Lower Salem in Washington County, OH, wrote to me about the drug Glumetza. She wrote: My husband has gotten the drug Glumetza for $10 each refill of 180 pills. When he re-ordered this prescription this morning the pharmacy called him to say that Glumetza now costs $3,000 for a 15-day supply. His insurance has a limit of $3,000. The pharmaceutical companies are beginning to look like the drug cartels of Mexico. The insurance companies are being forced to cut benefits or increase their cost to consumers who have worked hard all their lives and earned their health care benefits. He and I cannot continue to afford to pay these out of pocket expenses on a fixed income. We know that Janis in Washington County, OH, isn't alone. We also know that all Americans face higher health care premiums when insurance companies and hospitals are forced to absorb the cost of this price- gouging. Jeffrey Rosner of the Cleveland Clinic told the Times that the nine drugs with the worst price increases cost that hospital alone an additional $11 million a year and that Valeant's products made up 80 percent of that. Yet their billionaire CEO is doing very well. Valeant is not the only company that profits from its business of buying up old drugs and jacking up the price. We remember the coverage last month about Turing Pharmaceuticals, which raised the price of a drug called Daraprim, which is used to treat a life-threatening parasitic infection, from $13.50 to $750 a tablet overnight. The company Rodelis Therapeutics recently raised the price of a drug to treat multidrug-resistant tuberculosis from $500 to over $10,000 for the same number of pills. These are not scenarios of pharmaceutical companies charging higher prices to finance the development cost of new drugs. Take Valeant for example. Valeant spends 3 percent of its sales on research and development. Traditional drug companies tell us they spend 15 to 20 percent. Traditional drug companies will tell you they spend 15 to 20 percent of their revenues on research and development. That is why they need to charge high prices at the beginning, at least during their patent protection period--to recoup, they will say, the $500 million, $600 million, whatever it costs, in research and development. Valeant is buying drugs where that research and development have already been recouped. They spend only 3 percent of their sales on research and development. So where does Valeant's money go? One might hope it would support American pharmaceutical manufacturing jobs or pay back into our tax system to support lifesaving biopharmaceutical research at the National Institutes of health. But, no, what actually is happening is infuriating. Valeant, which shifted its profits overseas in 2010 to avoid its U.S. tax obligation, buys up the rights to existing pharmaceutical companies, lays off workers, hikes prices by eight- nine- tenfold, and then expects patients, hospitals, and taxpayers to pick up the tab. It is not right. As I said at the outset, we have seen this before. Valeant, Turing, and Rodelis are not the first companies to try this shady--and ``shady'' is too kind a word--business model. They won't be the last. In 2011, KV Pharmaceutical created an overnight monopoly on the lifesaving drug 17P, a preterm labor-prevention drug--a progesterone-- for pregnant women. KV Pharmaceutical didn't invent the drug. It spent no money on R&D. It spent no money on clinical trials, which are also expensive but not for them. The drug had been around for decades. It was normally compounded at pharmacies and at hospitals to treat pregnant women. What did it do? It applied to the FDA for 7 years of exclusive coverage under the Orphan Drug Act and changed the name from 17P to Makena. That is it. They proposed raising the price by almost 15 percent overnight. It was a $10 drug initially--$10, taken 20 times, so it cost about $200 for the regimen, and they raised the price to $30,000. Imagine that. We have thousands of pregnant women who have had a history of preterm births, and their doctors say to these women: You should take this compound, this progesterone, P17. The cost is only $200. You will get a shot every week for 20 weeks in a row. Then all of a sudden the price of $200 is raised to $30,000. What happens? Some places, Medicaid won't pay. Other places, private insurance won't pay. In many cases, women simply wouldn't take this progesterone, and the problems of low birth weight babies increases. The potentially devastating impact on our country is already too high for the preterm birth rate. Fewer women are able to afford the drug. When that happened 4 years ago, I wrote to the company's CEO asking them to consider the price increase. The senior Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar, and I sent a letter to the FTC urging an investigation. Together, we kept the pressure on the company. Frankly, we embarrassed them, as they deserved. So far the drug has stayed more affordable. We need to do the same thing today. Valeant and companies like it must not be allowed to get away with fleecing consumers and taxpayers. I am calling on my colleagues on the HELP Committee to hold hearings on this price-gouging. We must work together--Congress, the media, the public--to expose this kind of behavior, maybe a little shame. I don't normally like to do that, but when a CEO makes this kind of money by fleecing so many people--especially when it comes to low birth weight babies but also where people need these moderately priced drugs to stay alive--I think it is time to out them and put pressure on these companies. One thing we can also do, if my colleagues would wean themselves off of drug company contributions, is give Medicare the authority to negotiate drug prices. Many of these drugs with massive price increases are taken by large numbers of seniors who are on Medicare. We know the Veterans Administration uses the buying power of millions of American veterans to negotiate directly with drug companies to bring down significantly the cost of these drugs. For too long the pharmaceutical companies have profited off of their ability to charge more vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries higher prices for their drugs. Current law expressly bans Medicare from negotiating with pharmaceutical companies--again showing the power of drug companies lobbying my colleagues in this body--even though the government can negotiate bigger discounts with private insurance companies. This summer I helped introduce the Medicare Prescription Drug Savings and Choice Act, which would allow seniors to enroll in a Medicare Part D plan administered directly by Medicare instead of a private insurance company. This legislation requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate directly with drug companies to get the best prices for our seniors. Seniors should be able to get drug coverage directly through Medicare and not be forced to buy from a middleman. The purpose of lifesaving drugs is that--to save lives, not to line the pockets of Big Pharma executives and investors. We owe it to the people we serve--the people who elect us--to put a stop to the price- gouging that is bankrupting patients and overcharging Medicare, straining hospitals, and fleecing taxpayers. 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, in August this country lost a hero, a woman most have not heard of, but her story is legendary. Frances Oldham Kelsey passed away in August at the age of 101. She was a woman of tremendous courage and conviction. She was a trailblazing scientist. She earned her Ph.D. and then her medical degree from the University of Chicago while raising daughters. She did things that women of her generation were usually not allowed to do or certainly rarely encouraged to do. As she began her professional life, it was the early 1960s and a horrific scourge was afflicting Europe and other countries around the world. Thousands of babies were dying in the womb, thousands more were born with severe birth defects--including deformed arms and legs that, as history will tell us, resembled flippers--missing organs, missing limbs. The United States was largely spared from these terrible effects because of Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey. As a medical officer at the FDA, Dr. Kelsey was charged with investigating and approving the drug called Kevadon, better known in history by its generic name, thalidomide. The pharmaceutical company Merrell was expecting a speedy approval. After all, the drug was used around the world as a sedative and as a treatment for morning sickness. The drug had made a windfall for its German manufacturer, and Merrell was hoping for the same in our country. But Dr. Kelsey, who at that time was a woman in very much a man's world at the FDA, a woman who was not all that experienced, was willing to show her courage and demand further investigation before she would approve this drug. With few studies providing the safety of Kevadon--thalidomide--she rejected the application. Merrell protested, drug companies were outraged, and a number of other employees at the FDA disagreed. She asked for, though, and reviewed more data, and again she rejected the application. Again, Merrell protested. Again, other people were outraged by this woman's decision. Merrell's executives called her a petty and nitpicking bureaucrat. It is always easy to pick on a bureaucrat--a nameless, faceless bureaucrat, or a named bureaucrat with a face. It is easy to pick on bureaucrats. People here do it all the time. They called her office, and they peppered her with letters. They went over her head to her FDA bosses. Dr. Kelsey again--imagine a young woman without sort of the support that a more experienced, older, and, particularly in those days, male researcher might have had. She held her ground. She continued to reject the application. Meanwhile, the horrible toll was mounting in places around the world where thalidomide was sold. In late 1961, the German manufacturer pulled the drug, and health departments around the world began to issue warnings. In March 1962, Merrell, the drug company, seeing the handwriting on the wall, finally withdrew its thalidomide application. That might have been the end of the story, but staffers for Senator Estes Kefauver, a Democrat from Tennessee who had long been battling pharmaceutical companies to strengthen our country's drug oversight, gave the Washington Post a tip. The Senator's staff wanted the country to know about this woman, Dr. Kelsey, wanted people to know about the heroine who had spared our children from the terrible consequences of this drug. They wanted them to know that Big Pharma--Senator Kefauver wanted them to know that Big Pharma, the big drug companies, had fought her every step of the way, putting pressure on the FDA, going over her head, sending her letters, perhaps indirectly threatening her. Fortunately, she stood her ground against a very powerful combatant, for want of a better term. In no small part because of Dr. Kelsey and her persistence, we have the Kefauver Harris Amendment of 1962, which strengthened drug approval standards. We have a branch of the FDA dedicated to testing and investigating new drugs. Who became the head of it? Dr. Kelsey. Over a 45-year career, she helped to rewrite our drug and medical testing regulations, she strengthened patient protections, and she cracked down on medical conflicts of interest. Her rigorous standards were not only instrumental in improving drug safety in the United States, they also set the world standard for drug safety. The United States is known all over the world as having the gold standard to protect the public by rigorous testing and rigorous examination to protect the public against drugs that can do damage. Everybody thought thalidomide was harmless except Dr. Kelsey. Because she had the authority at the FDA to do it right and then was able to expand that authority working with Congress, uncounted lives, innumerable lives--we don't know how many lives were saved and how many people have been protected against harmful drugs. She had a 45-year career. She made a huge difference. Her accomplishments are heroic. She has received many honors. But we should remember that for all of Dr. Kelsey's recognition, there are thousands more Federal employees working with little appreciation and sometimes not very high pay. I am sure Dr. Kelsey could have been making more money practicing medicine, but look at the lives she saved and look at the difference she made. Expand that to so many government workers, so many people who do their jobs. Members of Congress--well-paid, well-dressed, getting good taxpayer benefits--love to attack the bureaucracy, love to call bureaucrats names, love to nitpick agencies, when, in fact, so many of them are making a huge difference in keeping the air we breathe, the water we drink, the drugs we take, the consumer products we use--keeping them safe. That is something those Federal employees should be proud of. They protect Americans from pollution and predatory lenders and faulty products and infectious diseases and dangerous drugs. We have made so much progress over the past century because of Americans like Frances Kelsey, but unfortunately too many people in this town seem to have amnesia and are trying to turn back the clock. I sit on the banking committee. We had a hearing today. I sit in the banking committee at least once a week for a couple of hours. I listen to my Republican colleagues who seem to have forgotten that the economy sort of imploded--almost imploded in 2008 and 2009. They seem to want to go back to those days of deregulation, not holding Wall Street accountable--the same kinds of things--the deregulation, the weakening of the FDA, the weakening of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the weakening of the Department of Agriculture standards, and all of the things that we do, where this country works better because we have government--call them bureaucrats--we have government bureaucrats who are working to protect the public interest. So we should honor Dr. Kelsey not with awards but with action to protect her legacy. Yet people right now in this Congress--I heard a long speech last night from the junior Senator from Texas, not ever to be confused with the senior Senator from Texas--I heard him again threaten government shutdowns. When government shuts down, food is less protected and water is likely going to be less clean, and all of the things that happen when government is not doing its job. I hope my colleagues join me in honoring Dr. Kelsey's legacy and remembering the work that heroic public servants in our Federal workforce do for this country. Affordable Care Act Mr. President, I want to read a brief letter. I was at my 45th high school class reunion. Some of us in this body might have reached an age close to that; most of you have not. At my 45th reunion, I met a woman who was there visiting someone else. She was much younger. She handed me this letter. She said: Senator Brown, I want to thank you for a couple of things. Thanks for the Affordable Care Act. She has a photography business. She said: Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, I was able to pursue my dream and open my business. I am diabetic. I was unable to self-insure due to my preexisting condition. I was forced to work low-wage jobs just so I could get insurance. Now, because of the Affordable Care Act--ObamaCare--I can thrive as an entrepreneur. Thank you. I hear those stories. I meet people. Now 600,000 Ohioans have health insurance who did not have it prior to the Affordable Care Act, and 100,000 additional Ohioans who are not much older than these pages sitting here, who are 19, 20, maybe 25, have insurance on their parents' health plan. One million--that is in Ohio alone--1 million seniors in Ohio have no copay, no deductible, and get free preventive care tests for osteoporosis, tests for diabetes, and physical exams. More than 100,000 seniors have saved an average of $700 on their prescription drugs because of the Affordable Care Act. A family like this--the parents of a child who has juvenile arthritis or diabetes or whatever a child might be afflicted with can get insurance in spite of the child's preexisting condition. When I hear in the Republican debates they all saying ``Repeal ObamaCare,'' it would be nice if one sort of gutsy reporter would say, ``Well, what about all those millions of seniors who now get free preventive care? What about those millions of people who have consumer protections so they cannot be denied coverage because they have a sick child? What about those people who got so sick that their medical care was very expensive and the insurance company cancelled their care? They cannot do that anymore. What about those people?'' I just wish we would hear that question one time. We honor Dr. Kelsey today, and we think about when government does things right in partnership with the private sector to make this country a better place to live. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I am joined by my colleague on the floor today, both of us longtime friends of the now late Congressman Louis Stokes. Senator Portman and I sat together at Congressman Stokes' funeral at Olivette Church in Cleveland just a couple of weeks ago. We both called Lou a friend. I wish to speak about him, and then I know Senator Portman would like to speak about his friendship and his alliances and allegiances and work with Congressman Stokes. He grew up in a Federal housing project in Cleveland. His father worked in a laundromat. His father passed away when Lou was 3, leaving his mother with two young sons to raise. A former sharecropper and descendant of slaves, she cleaned houses to support her sons and encouraged them to get an education. Lou shined shoes to earn money for the family. He served in the Army during World War II--probably a pretty segregated Army. He served and went to college at Case Western at night on the GI bill. From public housing, to public education, to public investment in our servicemembers, Congressman Stokes' life accomplishments show how government makes a difference in people's lives--something he passionately believed in--the partnership between government and communities, between the Federal Government and what we can do together as a country. In the 20th century, our country made great strides in that public investment and in expanding opportunity, paving the way for people like Congressman Stokes to become national and community leaders. What this country gave to Lou Stokes he gave back many times over. The seeds for his career of service were sowed in many places, in many fields, but particularly, he used to say, in the Army when he was stationed in the Deep South during the days of segregation. He was appalled by the inequalities he witnessed, even for those wearing the uniform and serving our country. He said once: I remember being moved from Jefferson Barracks in St. Louis to Camp Stewart, Georgia, through Memphis. They stopped the train there to eat lunch. The first dining room was all white soldiers; the next dining room was German POWs. A black curtain separated the black soldiers from the German POWs. It was one of the first times it really hit me. He would go on to dedicate his life to fighting those inequalities. He and his brother Carl opened a law firm in Cleveland. The first cases were civil rights cases. Congressman Stokes took on cases both big and small, including the landmark stop-and-frisk Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio. Again and again throughout his legal career, he fought for the interests of the powerless against the powerful--the same as he did in Congress. In 1965 Louis and Carl Stokes represented the local NAACP in challenging Ohio's congressional map. Around that time, Congressman Stokes' brother Carl was elected mayor of the city of Cleveland in a second attempt, and Cleveland then became the largest city in America which had elected a Black mayor. The new district map created from the lawsuit I mentioned brought Ohio's first African-American majority district in 1968. Lou Stokes won that seat and became the first African American to represent Ohio in Congress. In only his second term in the House, he became the first African American in the Nation's history to serve on the House Appropriations Committee. He didn't use his success to seek glory for himself; he used his commanding position to expand opportunities not just in his own district in Cleveland--so important to those of us who live in Cleveland and those of us who represent Ohio--but he used his position to help African-American communities all over the country. He was immediately--and he earned it--more and more beloved in the Black communities in every city in Ohio, including from Mansfield, where I grew up, to Akron, to Columbus and Cincinnati, to Dayton and Toledo and the smaller cities. He gave those who were too often ignored a voice in Washington, where it could make the most difference. He secured money for housing, urban development, health care, jobs programs, education, and for colleges primarily serving people of color. He was a strong advocate for unions. He cared greatly about the trade union movement. He knew the trade union movement gave great opportunity to African Americans, especially in cities like Cleveland. He stood up for collective bargaining. He stood up for the rights of workers everywhere. And to give a permanent and powerful voice to people of color, he helped to form the Congressional Black Caucus. Congressman Stokes' accomplishments are many. We honor him today with our words and with this resolution Senator Portman and I are introducing. We should strive to honor and continue to honor him each day. Here is how we do it, and I will close with this. On a Sunday night, 2 days before the 2008 elections, Senator Obama--a colleague of mine at the time in the Senate--was campaigning in Cleveland for President. It was two nights before the election. As Senator Portman and I remind our colleagues, Ohio is perhaps the Nation's No. 1 swing State. I know the Presiding Officer thinks they elect Presidents in her State, but we really do elect Presidents in the State of Ohio. So then-Senator Obama came to Ohio the Sunday night before the election to a rally estimated at between 70,000 and 80,000 people. As Presidential candidates almost inevitably and invariably are at the end of campaigns, he was about an hour late. Bruce Springsteen took the stage. A number of us spoke at the rally. Before Senator Obama arrived, I had the honor--and it became one of my greatest memories ever of public service--I stood beside and behind the grandstand and had a conversation of about 45 minutes to an hour with Congressman Stokes, who was retired at that point; Rev. Otis Moss, who delivered his eulogy a couple of weeks ago; and Mrs. Edwina Moss. I just listened to them for 45 minutes talk about what it meant to them that we were this close to electing an African-American President. They, frankly, didn't think it would happen in their lifetimes. They weren't even sure, the polls notwithstanding, that it was going to happen in 2008. The excitement and the sense of history and the awe and the depth of feeling Congressman Stokes and Edwina Moss and Reverend Moss exhibited during that 45 minutes--talking, reminiscing about memories, thinking of the future--to my wife Connie and me was something I will never forget. Since then, Citizen Stokes--former Congressman--who cared so deeply about this, was so happy we passed the Affordable Care Act. He was so happy we did things such as the auto rescue to get our State's economy back and going again. He cared so much about voting rights. He was so troubled by the Supreme Court decisions. He was so hopeful that our country could get back on track in a bipartisan way to build this economy, to pass voting rights, to do all of the things he devoted his life to first as a young lawyer, then as a Congressman, and then as one of Ohio's most prominent citizens, to continue to speak out on these issues that matter to all of us. We should honor his life and legacy by continuing Congressman Stokes' work for equality and justice in the lives of others. We honor him. We considered him a friend, and I know Senator Portman did too. I am thrilled to be able to stand on the floor and speak for a few moments about my friend, the late Congressman Stokes.

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I want to concur with the statement of the distinguished Democratic Leader on the long-term durability of the Iran agreement. Assuming Iran complies with the agreement and takes the key steps necessary to substantially reduce its stockpiles of enriched uranium, scale back its centrifuges, make changes to the Arak reactor to render it inoperable and unable to produce weapons-grade plutonium, and takes the many other steps necessary to qualify eventually for sanctions relief next year--and then continues thereafter to comply with their obligations--this agreement can and should last for many years. Today is the last day of the 60-day congressional review period established in the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which the President signed into law. As the leader noted, by supporting that legislation the Senate voted to consider three possible outcomes: no action at all, a resolution of approval, or a resolution of disapproval. Republicans brought a resolution of disapproval before the Senate and it failed. In fact, it has now failed on three separate occasions. In recent days, many of my Republican colleagues have claimed on this floor that because this historic international nuclear agreement with Iran is not a treaty and because Congress did not expressly approve the agreement, it will not carry into the next Presidential administration. That is not true. While it is true that the next President could decide--even in the face of continued compliance by Iran and strong objections from our allies in the P5+1--explicitly to withdraw from the agreement, I don't expect that to happen. And unless and until that happens, the terms of the agreement and the obligations of the U.S. Government--and all other governments that are party to the agreement, including Iran's--to comply do not end when this administration ends in January 2017. Leader Reid has outlined in his statement numerous similar agreements that have stood the test of time, from administration to administration, over the years. I commend Leader Reid for his statement, and agree wholeheartedly with him.

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 for up to 20 minutes as in morning business and to share the time with the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Portman.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. I thank you, Madam President, and I thank the assistant Democratic leader. Madam President, I rise in support of the international agreement designed to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. No one in this body trusts Iran. No one in this body disputes that Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism, that it denies Israel's right to exist, and that it destabilizes the Middle East and violates the human rights of its people. That is why we need to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, which would pose an exponentially greater danger to the security of the United States, to our longtime important ally Israel, and to the entire world. This is the only viable option. As Senator King said, no one has answered the question of what happens if we reject this agreement. Well, of the hundreds of calls I have made and the dozens of briefings and discussions I have had with people on both sides of the agreement--from Israeli officials, to American security people, to activists, engaged citizens on both sides of this--nobody has answered the question: What do we do if this agreement is killed in the Congress? What would follow? What is the alternative? I am incredibly proud of the diligent work my Democratic colleagues have done over the last 6 weeks in researching, examining, and questioning this deal. There was no knee-jerk reaction on our side where people all went the same way almost immediately when the agreement came out. People on the Democratic side of the aisle listened to experts, and they listened to stakeholders. We came to thoughtful, informed decisions. I made my decision after serious study of the agreement's contents, after listening to Ohioans on all sides of this, after consulting with nuclear experts, such as the Energy Secretary and Nobel Prize-winning physicist Secretary Moniz. I attended hours of briefings from the President, from the Energy Secretary, from Treasury Secretary Lew, from Secretary of State Kerry, and other administration officials. I consulted U.S. intelligence officials, outside arms control experts, and met for over an hour with Israel's Ambassador to the United States. I met with all five of the Ambassadors of the P5+1 countries; those who have been long-time allies of ours from France, England, and Germany; those from China, and from Russia, who are allies on this issue, if not a number of others. All--every one of them individually, collectively, warned that the United States--it would be the United States which would be isolated internationally if Congress rejects this agreement. Many of my colleagues talk about Iran's sponsorship of terrorism, its human rights abuses, and its pursuit of ballistic missiles. These are legitimate concerns, but they are not the focus of this agreement. Of course we would love to solve those issues. Sanctions on those issues will remain in place, but that was not the focus of this nuclear agreement. Let's be clear. When I hear opponents say that Iran 10, 15 years from now would be a threshold nuclear state--maybe they will, maybe they will not. That is certainly debatable. It is not debatable that Iran is a nuclear threshold state right now. They are 2 to 3 months away from being able to produce enough fissile material for a bomb. That is a fact. They are 2 to 3 months away from being able to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. The agreement provides for comprehensive restrictions today-- beginning when Congress allows this agreement to move forward, to block Iran's pathway to a bomb. They include reducing Iran's installed centrifuges by two-thirds for at least 10 years, cutting its stockpile of enriched uranium by 98 percent for 15 years, reconfiguring its plutonium reactor to render it inoperable and deny Iran a source of weapons-grade plutonium. To verify Iran's compliance, the deal requires 24/7 access to all declared nuclear sites. The United Nations inspectors will say that of the 120 country inspections they have done, this is the most comprehensive and the most intrusive. The deal provides time-certain access to all suspicious sites in Iran. It provides for a permanent prohibition on Iran acquiring or developing a nuclear weapon. It provides a permanent ban on nuclear weapons research and a permanent inspection regime for their nuclear program. If Iran violates the deal, the agreement gives the United States extraordinary power to snap back both U.S. and international sanctions without fear of veto by other nations. The President made clear that if 10 or 15 or 20 years from now Iran tries to build a bomb, this agreement ensures the United States will have better tools to target it. Americans fundamentally don't want another war in the Middle East. Americans strongly prefer a diplomatic solution, which this agreement is all about, that ensures that Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon. At the beginning of my remarks, I spoke about the serious way, with great gravitas, that Democratic after Democratic Senator--the serious way we pursued coming to a decision on this. Let me contrast for a moment on this, one of the most significant national security issues Congress will face in a generation. I have been in the House and Senate for 20 years now. This will be one of the two most important decisions I have made on foreign policy. The first was my vote against the war in Iraq. It was clearly the right vote, even though at the time there was public support for it. We know that the information we were presented was not exactly right in the end, even though there was huge support in Congress and a lot of public support for going into war with Iraq. I thought about that a lot. I made a decision that I thought the Iraq war would be disastrous for our country. That decision clearly was right. It was not so partisan back then, although we had a President that certainly pushed us and a Vice President, especially, that pushed us into that war. But this agreement should not be subject to the kind of reflexive partisan attacks we have seen in recent months. Just a few months ago, 47 of my Republican colleagues signed a letter signaling their opposition to the emerging deal--not just that, they signed a letter to the Ayatollah--to the leader of the enemy, Iran--suggesting that the deal was not quite on the up-and-up because of the President of the United States. They signed a letter that was teaching the Ayatollah, if you will, some American civic lessons. Imagine, if Democrats in the Senate in the early 1980s had written a letter to President Gorbachev saying: Don't negotiate with Ronald Reagan. Imagine if we had done that. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.