Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I was on the phone today listening to people call in from Ohio, taking calls. I heard so many people very afraid of the Boehner legislation and what might come out of a further compromise. Senator Reid, as the Senator said, has offered a good many cuts and doing this in a way that is bipartisan. Is the Senator hearing that in her State there is a real fear that the Republicans in the House are insisting on Social Security and Medicare cuts and what that would mean to people in her State?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, too many Ohioans are struggling--as are people all over the Nation--in this economy. They are watching Washington with disgust as some politicians are risking economic catastrophe. The House of Representatives continues to waste time as our Nation stands just 4 days away from a catastrophic default. Instead of working with us on a bipartisan basis in the Senate on a compromise measure to prevent a crisis, House Republicans are cutting closed-door deals to find votes on a bill that has no chance of becoming law. We are simply running out of time for these kinds of games. Only a bipartisan bill coming out of the Senate, negotiated with Republican Leader McConnell and Democratic Leader Reid, provides hope for a way out of this impasse. As the majority leader moves forward, I ask my Republican colleagues across the aisle to proceed with its work and not delay the resolution with filibusters and procedural tricks. In the spirit of compromise, Majority Leader Reid has come forth with a plan to reduce the deficit by $2.2 trillion. It is truly a compromise because it meets the Republicans' main criteria. It incorporates some of Senator McConnell's language. It contains spending cuts to roughly match the debt ceiling increase through 2012--the spending cuts in the Reid plan are ones Republicans had previously agreed to and, in many cases, advanced--and it contains no revenue increases, all criteria and demands from overwhelming numbers of Senate Republicans. The majority leader's plan is not perfect. It is not the balanced approach I hoped it would be. But most importantly, right now, it prevents a default, it reduces the deficit--a critical imperative for our children and grandchildren--and it protects Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid. My office is being swamped with calls and e-mails from Ohioans who cannot believe we are so close to default. I can't either. Let me read a couple letters from Ohio voters. Both of these individuals self- identify as Republicans when they write to me. The first one is from Representative Marcy Kaptur's district, which is in northern Ohio, along the lake. He says: I am a 40-plus-year-old Republican who has tried to work to eliminate the tax money we use that is now paid to oil and gas companies as tax subsidies. I don't like my tax money being given to these companies with Senators' blessings. I would like to ask both of you-- He sends this, apparently, to myself and my colleague, Senator Portman-- to support a balanced approach being proposed by the President and put debt and deficit to bed until an election can be held and the American people can determine who should be in Congress. We should have listened to Ronald Reagan when he said this should not have been undertaken. Meaning the debt limit issue. The debt limit is on past bills and should not be raised and not be used as a political volleyball and upset our financial institutions. Another letter writer--again, a Republican--says: I did not vote for our current President, but I have to side with him on the debt ceiling issues. I am exhausted by the political bickering that goes on in Washington. Quit the child-like fighting and get this thing done. The American people are tired of it all. A default would risk what amounts to a permanent tax hike on all Americans. Interest rates could rise for anyone applying for a home mortgage, a car loan or a college loan. Credit costs for all borrowers would climb. Governments at every level, businesses, not for profits, homeowners, credit card holders, even several States have already been placed on a credit watch. Every State would be hurt by a Federal default, which is why Governors of both parties are calling for a deal. There could be repercussions for pension funds and money market funds that guard the retirement savings of middle-class families. A default on our obligations would be a knockout blow to the financial security of the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System. These are public employees who have spent their lives working in Ohio's courts and schools and many other public positions in local and State government. That is why the Director of OPERS--the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System--sent a letter with nine of her colleagues pleading: America is now a debtor nation and must show the world the nation's word is its bond. It is critical that the debt ceiling be raised to avoid a default. The Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, obviously, represents Republicans and Democrats alike. As a member of the Senate Banking Committee, I heard Chairman Ben Bernanke, a Republican appointee, speak in March, and he said default would be ``an extremely dangerous and very likely recovering-ending event.'' Just today, several mayors of Ohio's large- and medium- sized cities--for example, the cities of Hillsboro, South Euclid, Chillicothe, North Royalton, Lancaster, Akron, Middletown, Shaker Heights, Reynoldsburg, Dayton, Steubenville, Solon, Newark, Fairfield, and other cities, Republicans and Democrats alike--wrote: As Mayors, we rely on the partnership of the federal government to help us create jobs and grow our communities. Uncertainty surrounding the federal budget puts key programs like Community Development Block Grants and Community Oriented Policing Services in jeopardy. Job-creating infrastructure projects would come to a halt without the full support of our federal partners. Inaction on the debt ceiling threatens programs like Social Security that our citizens rely on to survive. I have heard the Presiding Officer--in a meeting today, in fact--talk passionately about the uncertainty this would inject into our economy-- to follow the House lead--and do this again in 6 months and the irresponsibility of that proposal. As difficult as this has been for people on all sides and the contentiousness and anger, it doesn't matter whether we are angry or it is contentious around here, but what does matter is the message it sends to main street--Main Street Connecticut, Main Street Hartford, Main Street Columbus, Main Street New Haven and Toledo. When businesses are thinking about expansion, when they are thinking about taking a loan out or thinking about borrowing money, they are not going to do it when we are in the midst of a financial crisis such as we are in now. If we were going to do this again in 6 months, you can bet we would have the same kind of divisions, the same kind of arguments. The assistant majority leader told the story today about a Chicago businessperson who is terrified of this and what would happen if we didn't raise the debt ceiling, if we went into default; what might happen 6 months from now if we went through it again. So the responsible position is for this body, on a bipartisan basis, to work on the McConnell-Reid plan, to pass this, send it to the House of Representatives, and for them to pass it. We can then focus on job creation and on deficit reduction, but we will have moved forward together in a way that we have not for far too long a period of time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Of course.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. That is surely not my impression. I appreciate the comments from the assistant majority leader from Illinois. I listen to the words, as I have read, that Ronald Reagan said. The debt limit was raised 18 times in the 8 years of the Reagan administration, and each time it was, there were people who didn't like doing it. Nobody likes to vote for that. But there was never this: let's go up to the edge and take a chance. President Reagan always preached--as Presidents have since in both parties--that this is not a risk we can take, and I know this. I hear from Social Security beneficiaries, I hear from veterans, I hear from small businesspeople, and I hear from contractors around Wright-Patterson Air Force Base that they don't think we should take this risk, that they are--some use the word ``terrified'' getting this close to default, and most can't really believe we are this close. I can't, either. The Senator from Illinois and I have talked about this many times over the last few months, that we figured there would not be these lines in the sand and this belief that it doesn't matter if we default and we would get to a solution. But we haven't been able to. But no responsible people in elected office that I can think of in the last 30 or 40 years have wanted to go this close to default and play chicken and just think, well, maybe it won't hurt us much. We know what happens with interest rates. We know what might happen with Social Security checks and veterans' benefits and prison guard pay and airport safety and food inspectors--all of those functions that matter. I don't know why any responsible leader in this body or the other body would want to take that risk.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank the Senator for that comment and question. This is clearly more dangerous for our economy and our country, from Wall Street to Main Street, than what happened when they closed the government down 15 years ago or threatened to a few months ago. That was troubling, and that was damaging to our country, but we don't know what exactly would happen here. We are almost sure interest rates would go up. We are almost sure many people who benefit from government services directly would see those benefits go away. Whether it is a Social Security check or whether it is food safety or running the airports safely, all of those things would be at risk. I have heard a lot of sort of brouhaha or a lot of strong words out of the House and a lot of promises, but there seems to be too many people in that Chamber who don't really see the seriousness of this, don't see that this really does put our economy in jeopardy. You know, it is not just our economy. That is the most important part, but it is also our reputation around the world. It is the strength of the dollar. It is the blot on our national reputation. I haven't been to Europe in a long time, but I hear reports from people around the world that they are saying: What is going on in the United States of America that you can't even agree on raising the debt ceiling so you can really focus on things such as jobs? I had a meeting just last week--Senator Rockefeller and I, earlier this week--and there were eight or nine Senators who joined us to talk about focusing on a jobs agenda and what we need to do to restore American manufacturing. In a State such as Illinois, and in Connecticut--the other Senator from Connecticut was in our meeting and talked about Bridgeport and New Haven and all the manufacturing that is done in this country. We are still a major manufacturing country. This is going to hurt manufacturers. It is going to mean they can't borrow to meet payroll or borrow to expand or borrow to create more jobs. Why would we risk any of this instead of getting this done by focusing on job growth, and focusing on getting our budget in order? We know how do this. In the 1990s--and the Presiding Officer and the assistant majority leader were very much part of it--in the 1990s, we got to, one, a balanced budget and, second, we got to 21 million private sector jobs net increase because we passed a responsible budget. It had some tax increases for upper income people. It also had some tax breaks in it for middle-income people. It also had major cuts and major investments. And we did all of that because we wrote a thoughtful budget--didn't get a lot of help from the other side, but put that aside, we did it right, we got to a budget surplus, and we created 21 million jobs. We know how do this. But we didn't see anybody playing these kinds of games: Maybe we just let the debt ceiling go and go into default. We just could not take this chance. I thank the Senator from Illinois.

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 113, S. Res. 175.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I know of no further debate. I ask the Senate to vote on the adoption of the resolution.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I ask unanimous consent the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be agreed to, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration en bloc of the following resolutions, which were submitted earlier today: S. Res. 242, S. Res. 243, S. Res. 244.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Taylor Eggleston, an intern in Senator Paul's office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of this day.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 114, S. Res. 216.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I ask unanimous consent the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; the resolution, as amended, be agreed to; the committee-reported amendment to the preamble be agreed to; the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, August marks the start of a new school year for more than 1.8 million students in Ohio. It is a time of excitement and nervousness as students prepare for challenging classes, different classmates, and new teachers. As the summer winds down, high school students are cramming in the summer reading that they pushed off in favor of a bike ride with friends or a game of baseball. Middle school students are crossing their fingers in hopes that their best friend from the last school year is in their class this year. And soon-to-be kindergarteners are practicing their numbers and letters in preparation of their first day of elementary school. Student readiness for kindergarten is generally defined by the Ohio School Readiness Initiative as a child who has age-appropriate cognitive and social skills and a healthy mind and body. Student readiness can be fostered through a child's participation in high- quality and developmentally appropriate preschool programs like Head Start. These programs are important because if a child is not prepared for elementary school, they are more likely to fall behind their better-prepared peers and remain behind as they progress through school. However, it is equally important that schools are prepared to accept and support all students as they arrive at the schoolhouse door. Student readiness also means school readiness. That is why I am introducing The Ready Schools Act of 2011 with my colleague Senator Kay R. Hagan of North Carolina. This legislation incorporates the recommendations of a report conducted by the congressionally commissioned National Education Goals Panel, which states that elementary ``school readiness'' involves not only preparing each child for school, but also preparing schools to support each child's learning and development needs. The Ready Schools Act of 2011 would require title 1 eligible Local Educational Agencies to work with their elementary schools to develop a ready-school needs review. This review would focus on ways an elementary school can develop policies that would create a positive school environment. It would help teachers provide students with developmentally and culturally appropriate curriculums. Finally, it would empower collaboration with early childhood education providers in the school attendance area to ensure a smooth transition from preschool to elementary school. In my State of Ohio, the SPARK Ohio partnership has led the way in an effort to make every school a ``ready'' school. Through a strong partnership comprised of the Sisters of Charity, the Ohio Department of Education, the WK Kellogg Foundation and others, SPARK Ohio has helped developed a ``ready'' school needs review that is now a national model. I am proud of these efforts, and the hard work of the students, administrators, teachers, and families that have ensured the success of the more than 40 ``ready'' schools in Ohio. The Ready Schools Act is about more than making our schools the best they can be. It is about making Ohio, and all States in the Nation, the best they can be. By strengthening the alignment and delivery of early education, our youngest students can continue on a path of academic and life achievement. Research shows that third-grade reading skills can serve as an indicator of whether or not a student will graduate from high school. And not only is school readiness an educational imperative, it is an economic one as well. High school students dropping out from the class of 2010 alone will cause the State of Ohio over $10 billion in lower lifetime earnings, higher health care costs, and crime related costs. The building blocks critical to a lifetime of learning are laid during the elementary school years. This is why I am proud to introduce the Ready Schools Act. It will not only improve our system of education but will ultimately lead to a stronger nation.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, first, I wish to thank Senator Rockefeller for his leadership on the FAA issue. It is so important in rural areas. It is so important to attract and retain a workforce. It is so important to the local economies in large cities like Cleveland, Cincinnati and Columbus and in smaller communities too. As Senator Rockefeller said, our aviation system is absolutely critical for economic development. People in big cities might make fun of small airports that they do not have all the hustle and bustle. But we do know medium-sized and smaller airports matter a great deal. With the refusal of the House to take up a clean extension of FAA, nearly 4,000 employees across the country have been furloughed and dozens of construction projects have come to a halt. In this economy, some radicals in the House of Representatives have decided--because they have a political mission and ideology that does not quite fit with the majority of Americans--they are going to again hold hostage something that simply needs to be done; that is, what is called reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration. As Senator Rockefeller said, these furloughed employees may be forced to look elsewhere for jobs to meet their mortgage payments or pay for groceries--these are very skilled technicians and engineers. And what does this mean to these construction projects? FAA helps to pay, all over the country, for modernization of airports--rebuilding air traffic control towers, improving runways, and making countless safety improvements. We have all heard stories--I do not recall that I have ever seen it, but we have heard stories of the Beijing or Shanghai airports or some of these airports--I have not seen them in the last many years--about the new technologies and the modern features of those airports. As a country we cannot afford to fall behind. We have to keep up. Not passing a clean extension of the FAA bill is exactly the wrong thing to do. The unemployment rate in the construction industry is nearly double the national average. Yet we are idling cranes and we are idling bulldozers all because of a political mission, an ideology that some Members of the House--some radical Members of the House--have decided to inflict on us. A clean extension of FAA has been done 20 times. All of a sudden it is not. I hope the House gets serious. I hope they appoint conferees and come to the table and work this out. I appreciate very much Senator Rockefeller's leadership. He is making a difference on these important issues, and our House colleagues need to follow.

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I wish to talk also about another issue where we should have done a clean extension--as we have done dozens of times in this country. In the past three decades alone, we have avoided default by addressing the debt limit 38 times; 34 of those were with Republican Presidents. That is almost 90 percent of the time we have raised the debt ceiling--more precisely, avoided default--it has been under Republican Presidents. A lot of us did not like it. We maybe made a public statement saying we did not like their fiscal policy, but we never stood in the way, we never tried to take hostage--take the government hostage or each other hostage by saying--almost like children--if I do not get my way, then I am going to block this and I am going stop--I am going to potentially throw our financial system and our economy into turmoil. What kind of behavior is that for adults? Then, when I hear Speaker Boehner and some of his radical kind of cheerleaders on the far political right say we should do this again in 6 months, I wonder what are they possibly thinking, when we go through this right now. I spend a lot of time with manufacturers around my State. I love seeing things made. My State is the third largest manufacturing State in the country, exceeded in production only by California, three times our population, and Texas, twice our population. I talk to manufacturers, and some of them are not investing now for a variety of reasons. Mostly they do not see the demand for products because the demand is still anemic in our society, in our economy, for companies to grow. But they also talk about the uncertainty. They talk about the uncertainty in the economic environment. This is the worst kind of uncertainty we are going to inject into our economy if we are going to say let's do this in 6 months. Do they think anybody in North Carolina or Ohio or around the State, around the country, any businesses are thinking: This is a great time to invest, right when Moody's and Standard & Poor's might downgrade us, right when we do not know what is going to happen in the next week with a potential default. Do they think anybody is going to make a major investment decision right now? Of course, they are not. So let's do it again in 6 months? When I heard Speaker Boehner--I like John Boehner personally. He is from my State. Our offices obviously work together in places such as Butler County, Preble County, and the Dayton-Cincinnati areas. But I would have thought people would have laughed when he said: Yes, let's do this again in 6 months because we do not have a jobs problem to worry about. Clearly, we should get this done with and focus--that means cutting the budget. I understand that. We have to work toward a balanced budget. We knew how to do it in the 1990s. In the early 1990s, President Clinton--I came to the House the year he was elected President. We faced a terrible budget situation and an unemployment situation. But you know what. We cut spending. We increased taxes appreciably for only a relatively few number of people, the wealthiest people in our society. We continued to make investments in education, health care and infrastructure and our economy. We had almost 8 years--not quite, maybe 7 years some months--of regular economic growth, and 21 million new jobs were created. So we know how to do this. But this crowd wants to hold the government hostage saying, if you do not do it exactly our way, we are going to let the government go to default, and once we solve that, let's do it again in 6 months. I just think it does not make sense. What we should be doing instead is focusing--I know what an important manufacturing State the Presiding Officer represents in North Carolina, as in Ohio--on manufacturing. We are still a country that makes things. My State is particularly a State that makes things. The year after what is called the American Recovery Act passed, my State got more new jobs in clean energy than any State in the United States of America. My State is a leader in aerospace. It is a leader in auto and steel and chemicals and cement and paper and aluminum and glass. Yet we are also in the kind of traditional industries, and we are also, as I said, a leader in solar, in Toledo, OH, and other places. We are a leader in wind turbine component manufacturing, especially in the northeast but all over Ohio. We are a leader in aerospace, as I mentioned. We are a leader in biomedical and biotech, in large part because we have great universities and great teaching hospitals in, I was going to say, prominently in northeast Ohio but also Columbus, also Cincinnati, also Toledo--all over our State. Clearly, we know how to do these things. But what we have seen in the past three decades is a shift in our Nation. Thirty years ago, manufacturing was 25, 26, 27 percent of our gross domestic product. Basically, one-fourth of the dollars in our economy were all about manufacturing. That created great wealth, because the way to create wealth is to make something, to grow something or to mine something, preeminently. So 30 years ago, manufacturing was some 23, 24, 25, 26 percent of our GDP. Financial services was only 11 percent in those days. Today, it is almost the reverse. Financial services makes up about 20 or 22 percent and manufacturing makes up only about 11 percent of our GDP and even a slightly smaller percent of our workforce. Why does this matter? It matters because we know when we make things it creates wealth. Manufacturing jobs pay 20 percent more, on average, than service jobs. We know the difference between retail versus making steel or the difference between fast food restaurant work versus making cars or chemicals or glass or biotech. We know manufacturing jobs have a strong multiplier effect. So if we have an auto company--let me give an example. The Chevrolet Cruze is a car my daughter just brought--by and large, an Ohio car. It would not have happened if we had not done the auto rescue that so many of my colleagues opposed for ideological reasons, not substantive, practical, let's-make-it-work reasons. Nonetheless, we know the auto industry is coming back and we know manufacturing jobs have increased--far too anemically, but they have increased over the last year. But the Chevy Cruze, the engine is made in Defiance, OH, and the bumper is made in Northwood, OH, and the transmission is made in Toledo, OH, and the steel comes out of Cleveland, OH, for much of the car. The aluminum wheels come out of Cleveland, OH. The stamping is done in Parma, OH. Some of the other stamping is down in Lordstown, OH. The assembly is done in Lordstown, OH. There are 5,000 people working just on the assembly alone. So that is the multiplier effect. When we assemble in Toledo, we assemble the Jeep. Chrysler assembles the Jeep in Toledo. Some 3 years ago, only 50 percent of the components for the Jeep were American made. Today, over 70 percent are American made. So we know manufacturing creates all kinds of jobs, making 20 percent more, on average, than service jobs. Since the beginning of the recession, though, we still see profits at large financial institutions and other service firms increase, but our Nation's unemployment rate is still hovering around 9 percent. So when profits go up for those financial services firms--and I appreciate JPMorgan Chase in Columbus, OH. I met with their top person in Ohio just this week--just moving from Cleveland to Columbus. I know the important work they do in my State. I know they provide thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs. That is all a good thing. But I also know in an economy which is not paying attention to manufacturing, we do not get the multiplier effect, we do not get the higher wages, we do not get the employment growth that we might get otherwise. That is why, yesterday, Senator Rockefeller and I convened a meeting, where Senator Whitehouse, Senator Jack Reed, Senators Schumer and Klobuchar and Feinstein and others attended. We talked about a real national manufacturing strategy. That means closing the skills gap. We have a lot of jobs in places such as Iowa and North Carolina, Ohio, where they go unfilled because we do not have well enough connected worker training with those jobs, with the needs. We need to pursue better tax and trade policies. We need to pay special attention to manufacturing. Yesterday, the Senate sent to the House legislation we passed unanimously that said: When the government buys American flags, rather than 50 percent--a requirement that 50 percent of them be made in the United States--the requirement now is that 100 percent be made in the United States. Why do we not put more focus on ``Made in the USA''? It will matter for us. It matters for our national pride on flags, to be sure, but it matters for our communities, it matters our companies, and it matters for our workers. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, this week we have a unique opportunity to reduce the deficit to the tune of $2.2 trillion. That is $2.2 trillion to protect Medicare, to protect Social Security, to protect Medicaid, and to make sure the United States of America doesn't do something we have never done; that is, go into default. We can debate how we got here. We can debate why we have this huge budget deficit. We can debate whether it is Barack Obama's fault or George Bush's fault. We can debate whether it was the Recovery Act or whether it was the two wars President Bush didn't pay for. We can debate whether it is the health care bill of President Obama or the giveaway to the drug and insurance companies that President Bush did in the name of Medicare privatization. We could talk about President Bush's tax cuts. We could do any of that, but the urgency of this situation is not a question for debate. Never before has the full faith and credit of the United States of America been held hostage to a major budget agreement. In the past three decades before President Obama--so let's take him out of this picture for a minute--we have avoided default by raising the debt limit 38 times in the last 30 years before President Obama. Out of those 38 times, 34 of those times--almost 90 percent--were under Republican Presidents. Again, 34 of 38 times were under Republican Presidents. We didn't do a hostage-taking. We didn't try to scare people. Even if we didn't like doing it, we simply raised the debt ceiling. As I and many Democratic colleagues have said, we can balance the budget as we did under President Clinton. I came to office in 1992 in the House. I voted for a controversial budget. No Republicans joined us. We had almost 8 years of economic growth, with 21 million net private sector jobs created, and we got to a balanced budget. We know how to do that. We do it with a balance between spending cuts and revenues, especially closing tax loopholes, giveaways to the oil companies, tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs, and tax breaks for hedge fund operators on Wall Street. We can close those tax loopholes. We can do spending cuts, and we can do what we need to do to move toward a balanced budget. During those 38 times, there were freestanding votes. Each time it was raised, there was a freestanding vote. Neither party played these games. Neither party held our Nation hostage to these political games. Rather than a freestanding vote on the debt limit, we are in a last- minute scramble. Democrats have said: OK, we will reach an agreement. Never has one party insisted that the amount of the increase in the debt limit be offset by an equal amount of spending cuts. We have even agreed to that approach. Never before has one party insisted that a major budget agreement exclude provisions that address revenue. We have even said yes to that. Now having had their demands met, the people in the party who insisted on all these conditions are saying no. They are saying no again. The debate on the debt and the deficit has been complicated, it has been contentious, it has been angry, but a default should be unimaginable. A default should be unimaginable. A default would risk what would amount to a permanent tax hike. I hear many of the radicals in the House of Representatives who say they will never vote for a debt increase, as if it is something we should never, ever do in a country. They all talk about tax cuts, but a default on the part of the United States of America would amount to a permanent tax hike on all Americans. Interest rates would rise for anyone owning a home, paying a home mortgage, applying for a home mortgage, anyone with a car loan, anyone with a college loan. Credit costs for all borrowers would climb for governments at every level, businesses, nonprofits, small businesses, large businesses, credit card holders. There would be repercussions for pension funds and money market funds that guard the retirement savings of middle-class families. Basically, everybody in the Presiding Officer's home State of Minnesota, in my home State of Ohio--everybody would be afflicted with this tax increase, if you will, from higher interest rates. Several States have already been placed on a credit watch. Every State would be hurt by a Federal default, which is why Governors of both parties are saying: Make a deal; get to this. This is not alarmist thinking. There is a reason Ronald Reagan went to Congress 18 times to raise the debt ceiling. Here is what President Reagan said: The full consequences of a default--or even the serious prospect of a default-- That is where we are right now, in a serious prospect of default-- by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar. None of us is being alarmist because we really don't know, but we know people whom most Americans respect--President Reagan, President Clinton, others who have asked for a debt ceiling increase, economists, businesspeople--nobody knows for sure what would happen, but nobody has ever wanted to take that risk. We have always paid our bills. Default could affect Ohioans receiving Medicare and Social Security. It could affect veterans in hospitals and universities. President Obama has said he can't guarantee payments to senior citizens, to bondholders, or other obligations of the United States of America. You cannot fake cashflow. These are real consequences. When it comes to jobs, to seniors living on fixed income, in the midst of an economic growth that is as fragile as ours is, lawmakers ought to suspend their politics. Today, the harm of inaction would be immense. President Obama put several proposals forward to reduce the deficit in a big way, modeled after these bipartisan commissions where there has been pretty good bipartisan agreement. But efforts to forge a grand compromise bringing the deficit down by $4 trillion have been abandoned by Republican leaders over and over. I have not supported every detail on these grand compromise efforts. I don't want to do anything to undermine Medicare or Social Security or Medicaid, programs that have worked for generations now and programs that millions of Ohioans depend on, from Middletown to Ashtabula, from Toledo to Athens and Gallipolis. I wanted a more balanced approach. I know the Presiding Officer did too. But as days and weeks and months go by, we are now only days away from default. We are simply running out of time. That is what the Senate bill is about--protecting us from default. In the spirit of continued compromise, again, the majority leader has come forth with a plan to reduce the deficit by $2.2 trillion. It is truly a compromise because it meets the Republicans' main criteria. It contains spending cuts to roughly match the debt ceiling increase through 2012. The spending cuts in the Reid plan are ones to which Republicans have previously agreed. It contains no revenue increases. All three of those have been what Republicans asked for. But now it is not good enough. What do they want to do when we basically met their demands? Beyond all that, this compromise we have offered--mostly what they have asked for--contains an important priority of mine--not one of the Republicans, to be sure--and that is that we protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I know that major Republican budgets--the so-called Ryan budget, the Republican House budget--undercut our major important programs, Medicare and Medicaid especially. We know the so-called cut, cap, and balance proposal the Republicans have passed that is being voted on here didn't protect Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. So we know Republicans want to go after those programs. Under this compromise, we have been able to protect that, but we need to make sure we put country ahead of party, national interest above partisanship. That is why we have been willing to compromise. Speaker Boehner's plan is being revised, but so far it provides significantly less than the savings in the Reid proposal. By design, the Boehner plan would put us back in this situation in a few months. What rational economist, what responsible elected official, what businessperson in St. Paul or Columbus, in Rochester or Mansfield--what businessperson would say: Let's put the U.S. in this situation again in 6 months? We know what has happened in this country in the last month or so. As we approach default, as businesses particularly watch the way this is being debated and how this is being handled, people are way less certain, people are way more concerned about our ability to raise the debt ceiling and keep us out of default. Businesses are holding on to their cash reserves because they are not willing to invest now because they don't want this to happen. So why would we want to go through this again in 6 months? Why would we possibly think this is good for the United States--for people in Chillicothe and Dayton, in Youngstown and Akron, in Canton and Kenton, Wauseon and Bowling Green? Why would we want businesses in our country to go through this again in 6 months? We need to get this done quickly. We have to raise the debt ceiling to keep us out of default. We need to make sure we focus on deficit reduction, and we need to put our efforts into job creation. People all over my State--when I am in Dayton, Springfield, Cuyahoga County or Mahoney County, as I was this past weekend--people are mostly saying they want us to focus on job growth. We need to do budget cuts and raise the debt ceiling to keep us out of default. We mostly need to make sure we move forward on job creation. We prevent a default and reduce the deficit with the Reid plan--a critical imperative for our children and our grandchildren. It protects Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid. My office is being swamped with calls and e-mails from Ohioans who simply can't believe we are this close to default. Within the week, Congress must pass and the President must sign an increase in the debt ceiling. It is essential if we want to prevent an absolutely unnecessary, an absolutely uncalled for, yet catastrophic default. It is necessary to move on to address the issue of jobs. Too many recent college graduates, too many people who have been in the workforce for too many years, too many people who are unemployed are looking for jobs. That is where our focus should be. We need to pass the Reid plan, work on deficit reduction, and work on job growth. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I rise to discuss legislation called the All-American Flag Act of 2011 and make some comments about what has happened to American manufacturing and how this is a small step but an important step in beginning to convince this body that ``Made in America'' is something we should focus on, that a manufacturing strategy from the White House is something they should focus on, and that putting people back to work to make things in America again is the right strategy to pull us out of a recession. The Labor Department's most recent jobs report confirmed what workers in my State are already aware of--that employers are still not hiring. Workers who have jobs are seeing smaller paychecks, and they are barely keeping up with bills and insurance costs. In too many cases, soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are facing even greater challenges in the labor market. I was at Youngstown State University recently talking about the specific programs there. In Cleveland, through MAGNET--a group called MAGNET in Youngstown and in northeast Ohio is helping soldiers and sailors and marines leaving the service, integrating into the classroom, and helping them find jobs in that region--someplace we have fallen woefully short. Manufacturing, which was moving along steadily earlier this year--we had seen 12, 13, 14, 15 months of job growth in manufacturing, not enough job growth but some--that is even slowing down. Steps that were taken through the auto rescue and other things we did in the last couple of years dealing with this terrible recession created in 2007 and 2008--the auto rescue and other efforts saved millions of Americans from joining the unemployment rolls. We are seeing a better auto industry, an auto industry coming back, especially in places such as Defiance and Toledo and Northwood and Cleveland and Lawrenceville, OH. But the challenges remain severe. Like many in this Chamber, I believe manufacturing is the key not only to our economic recovery but to the strength and vitality of our Nation. To many, manufacturing is also a ticket to the American middle class. In the last 12 years, we have witnessed the closure of more than 54,000 factories in the United States. Last year, we lost 8,000. That is 5,400 factories per year, 15 per day in the last 12 years. The manufacturing sector, since the beginning of the Bush administration, 2001, has lost 5 million jobs. Only 11.5 million people are employed in manufacturing jobs now. The last time it was that low was in 1941, before the country scaled up for production for World War II. When Members of this body talk about the need to support manufacturing, others will say that is ``picking winners and losers'' and that ``the government has no role in helping manufacturing.'' First of all, that makes no sense, but second, I have heard all those before. I think the government already has picked winners and made choices. Manufacturing in the early 1980s exceeded 25 percent of our GDP. Now it is only 11 percent of our GDP. Over that same time period--financial services back 30 years ago was about 11 percent of our GDP, and now they are about 21 percent. So a government that put way too much focus on and interest in and support for financial services at the expense of manufacturing has clearly cost us far too many middle-class jobs. It is a result of tax policy; it is a result of not investing in innovation; it is a result of the China PNTR, the permanent normal trade relations; it is a result of NAFTA; and it is a result of not enforcing our trade laws. There is blame to go around, but the blame will not create a job that a former autoworker in Youngstown or a rubber worker in Akron or a chemical worker in Columbus or a steelworker outside Cincinnati--that will not create a job they are looking for, nor reduce the rising cost for them of food and gas and shelter. I urge my colleagues to consider taking big steps, not just slight changes at the margin, in rebuilding our manufacturing base and rebuilding the middle class. Those steps include rebalancing our economic policies, reinvesting in education, reinvesting--putting real support into workforce training, and enforcing trade laws that increase our exports and reinforce trade, three examples of enforcing trade laws that happened in the last couple of years, thanks in part to a more aggressive Obama administration finally on trade law. We have seen hundreds of jobs created in Lorain, OH; in Youngstown, OH, because of enforcement of trade laws on Oil Country Tubular Steel. We have seen rubber worker jobs, tire manufacturing jobs created in Finley, OH, because of enforcement of international trade law. We have seen coated paper jobs, paper manufacturing jobs in Butler County, OH, again, because of an aggressive Federal policy about enforcing trade law, but we don't see enough of that. There are other steps more modest but demonstrate a commitment to our manufacturing sector--one step requiring the Federal Government when purchasing flags to purchase only those flags 100 percent American made. That sounds fairly amazing that they are not made in America today. It sounds fairly amazing that would make much difference but really it does. Currently, Federal law requires that American flags purchased by the U.S. Government contain a minimum of 50 percent American-made products or components. So the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security or the U.S. Capitol buys the American flags and under law they only need to be 50 percent made in the United States of America. These are American flags. This legislation we will offer today, which has the support of Senator Rockefeller, a Democrat from West Virginia, Senator Collins, a Republican from Maine, Senator Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, have joined me as cosponsors. It honors our country by ensuring American flags flown over government buildings are actually American flags. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the value of imported American flags to the United States was $3.2 million with $2.8 million coming from China. When I think about all of the production in China, I often think about young workers--and when I say young workers, I mean young workers in China--who make things people in the United States buy. I have to think Chinese workers, if they think about this while they are working, must be a bit amused that they are making American flags in China and selling them to us. They must think what kind of country is this that doesn't make their own flags. It just occurred to me that would be amusing if it weren't somewhat tragic. The Congressional Research Service said there are at least eight all- American flag manufacturers in the United States. There are eight companies that can do this. This isn't a question of rare Earth materials that we can't get enough of. I know the Senator from Colorado has been interested in that issue, the Presiding Officer. The increased demand for made in the U.S.A. flags will lead to more jobs. Thanks to this legislation we will have more production. In a time when we face economic hardship, it is critical to invest in the manufacturing base. There is no product that deserves a U.S.A. label more than American flags. Manufacturing built a strong middle class. When you think of the combination of large-scale manufacturing of all kinds of products and collective bargaining laws that let people come together and bargain and negotiate collectively, it clearly is the way we built the middle class in this country. It is critical today that the government lead by example. That is why the Ohio Senate bill 5 is so important, the repeal of the repeal of collective bargaining. It is why manufacturing is so important. This legislation today that I will bring up in a moment is a modest step towards building that manufacturing strategy, moving forward on made in America and a modest step towards enhancing and strengthening our manufacturing base. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Homeland Security Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1188 and that the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Brown of Ohio substitute amendment at the desk, which we just discussed, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I now ask for a second reading and, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.