Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, for over a week the Senate has been debating the Economic Development and Revitalization Act of 2011, which would reauthorize funding for existing programs of the Commerce Department's U.S. Economic Development Administration through 2015. EDA has traditionally been noncontroversial, traditionally been a bipartisan job-creation bill supported by Presidents of both parties, often supported in this body without dissent. It helps broker deals between the public and private sectors, which is critical to our economic recovery and growth. It is particularly important to economically distressed communities, particularly in tough economic times. Every $1 in EDA grant funding leverages nearly $7 worth of private investment. Every $10,000 in EDA investment in business incubators--or accelerators, as some call them--helps entrepreneurs start up companies in which nearly 70 jobs are created. In Ohio--and I don't think it is much different in the Presiding Officer's State of Colorado--we have seen since 2006 that some 40 EDA grants worth $36 million have leveraged a total of more than $87 million since private resources were matched. Colleges and universities, from Bowling Green in northwest Ohio, to Ohio University in southeast Ohio, to Miami University in southwest Ohio, have received EDA funds. So, too, have port authorities in Toledo in the west and Ashtabula in the far northeast and entrepreneurs in Cleveland and Appalachia. If we are to strengthen our competitiveness, we will need to equip businesses with the tools they need to thrive. That is what EDA is designed to do. It is the front door for communities facing sudden and severe economic distress. When economic disaster hits, communities turn to the government, and it is EDA that does the job at low cost, leveraging all kinds of private dollars. EDA has helped redevelop the former GM plant in Moraine, OH, near Dayton, and the DHL plant in Wilmington. Ashtabula's Plant C received EDA investments to make vital repairs. The bill the Senate is considering would strengthen a proven job- creating program. It would reduce regulatory burdens to increase flexibility for grantees. It would encourage public-private partnerships that we have already seen make a difference in my State. And the bill would better streamline EDA cooperation with other Federal, State, and local agencies to better assist communities with local economic development. I plan to offer two amendments to further strengthen EDA. One would assist communities when a plant closure or downsizing causes economic distress, such as Wilmington or Moraine. The amendment gives special preference to auto communities. The other amendment would make more Ohio communities eligible to receive funds for business incubators. Ohio is home to the National Business Incubator Association in Athens, OH, and several model business incubators, from Toledo, to Shaker Heights, to Youngstown. This amendment would allow more companies in Ohio and more communities in Ohio to support homegrown entrepreneurship. Two weeks ago, I visited--as I have in several places around the State--an incubator in Shaker Heights called the Launch House. It was an old car dealership that had been closed down several years ago. It was renovated with relatively little money. It is now home to about 40 entrepreneurs, one- and two-person startup operations, with the average age of these young entrepreneurs being under 30. The great majority of these 35 or 40 entrepreneurs are themselves under 30. Some of these startups won't exist in 2 years. Some will have grown in 2 years. Many will be hiring lots of people in the years ahead. Some will fail, some will succeed. As I pointed out earlier, only $10,000 of EDA investment in a business incubator, on average, creates somewhere in the vicinity of 50, 60, or 70 jobs. If we want to promote an economy fueled by innovation, we must better equip our entrepreneurs with the resources they need to turn an idea in the lab to a product in the market. Earlier this year, I held an innovation roundtable at Battelle with leading Ohio entrepreneurs and business leaders where we discussed the need to strengthen workforce development, promote business entrepreneurship, and support city planning. EDA assistance, they told me--as do other business leaders around the State and as entrepreneurs do tell--is critical to these goals. This is legislation on which we should move forward. I am sorry my friends on the other side of the aisle who have been so supportive of EDA in the past--as it has always been bipartisan--seem to be standing in the way of this. It is important to move forward, so I ask for the Senate's support.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the All- American Made Flag Act, on this 234th celebration of Flag Day in our Nation, On June 14, 1777, the Second Continental Congress first adopted a flag for our new country, bestowing a meaning to the stars and stripes of our founding commitment to freedom and democracy. Our flag inspires servicemembers in times of war; it looks over state capitals and schools, stadiums and veterans halls as a reminder of the price of our peace and security. It stood through the smoke in Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and the rubble in New York City and Washington D.C. on September 11, 2001. The flag instills hope of a better life for generations of immigrants, embodying an aspiration of free people around the world. Americans pledge allegiance to the flag, reminding us about our Nation's history, and the system of checks and balances and separation of powers that tenders the balance of our laws and freedoms. The flag that inspired our national anthem rests in the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History. Smaller, hand-held flags are waived during Fourth of July Parades and on Memorial Day are placed alongside headstones. But whether in museums or in parades or upon memorials, the American flag reaffirms the power and meaning first ascribed to it by our founders. And what better way to celebrate its meaning, our Nation's history and virtue, than to ensure it is stamped with the Made-in-America label. On this day, I introduce the All-American Made Flag Act, which would require that American flags purchased by the Federal Government are entirely made in America. Across the nation, and especially in Ohio, manufacturers and businesses have been making and selling American flags for generations. In Coschocton, Ohio, the nation's oldest and largest producer of American flags has been doing so since 1851. From the first World's Fair in New York City, through the Civil War and World War II, and into the universe and onto the moon these flags, made in Coschocton, have played a role in our nation's history. Today, on Flag Day, it joins other businesses that sell All-American made American flags, from Cincinnati to Dayton to Columbus to Cleveland. Few things can give better meaning to the Made-in-America label than our own flag. The All-American Made Flag Act would provide that meaning, and in doing so, would invest in America's workers and manufacturers who embody the ingenuity and patriotism embodied in the very flag itself.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the All- American Made Flag Act, on this 234th celebration of Flag Day in our Nation, On June 14, 1777, the Second Continental Congress first adopted a flag for our new country, bestowing a meaning to the stars and stripes of our founding commitment to freedom and democracy. Our flag inspires servicemembers in times of war; it looks over state capitals and schools, stadiums and veterans halls as a reminder of the price of our peace and security. It stood through the smoke in Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and the rubble in New York City and Washington D.C. on September 11, 2001. The flag instills hope of a better life for generations of immigrants, embodying an aspiration of free people around the world. Americans pledge allegiance to the flag, reminding us about our Nation's history, and the system of checks and balances and separation of powers that tenders the balance of our laws and freedoms. The flag that inspired our national anthem rests in the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History. Smaller, hand-held flags are waived during Fourth of July Parades and on Memorial Day are placed alongside headstones. But whether in museums or in parades or upon memorials, the American flag reaffirms the power and meaning first ascribed to it by our founders. And what better way to celebrate its meaning, our Nation's history and virtue, than to ensure it is stamped with the Made-in-America label. On this day, I introduce the All-American Made Flag Act, which would require that American flags purchased by the Federal Government are entirely made in America. Across the nation, and especially in Ohio, manufacturers and businesses have been making and selling American flags for generations. In Coschocton, Ohio, the nation's oldest and largest producer of American flags has been doing so since 1851. From the first World's Fair in New York City, through the Civil War and World War II, and into the universe and onto the moon these flags, made in Coschocton, have played a role in our nation's history. Today, on Flag Day, it joins other businesses that sell All-American made American flags, from Cincinnati to Dayton to Columbus to Cleveland. Few things can give better meaning to the Made-in-America label than our own flag. The All-American Made Flag Act would provide that meaning, and in doing so, would invest in America's workers and manufacturers who embody the ingenuity and patriotism embodied in the very flag itself.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I thank the Senator from California, and I thank the Senator from South Dakota also for his indulgence. I will be no more than 10 minutes. I listened to Senator Boxer. This EDA issue is important for job creation. I know when it comes to something such as this, there is a whole array of issues that EDA is involved with in job creation. Just one of them is what EDA does with incubators and accelerators. Last week, I was in Shaker Heights, OH, at a place called the LaunchHouse. It used to be an auto dealership, and there are now 40 entrepreneurs working there. We know EDA investment, public dollar investment, in these incubators pays real dividends. The EDA estimates a $10,000 investment creates 50 or more jobs. We are seeing that in places such as Shaker Heights and Youngstown, one of the best incubators in the country. Athens, OH, is the home of the National Association of Incubators, and they know what that means. Before the Senator from Alaska was presiding, I was in the chair presiding and listening to some of this debate. I am a bit amazed by it. First of all, let's remember a little bit of history. I hear the talking points, apparently distributed to all 47 of the Republican Senators, all coming to the floor and blaming government regulation for every problem known to humankind. They are forgetting government regulation is seat belts, airbags, safe drinking water, prohibition on child labor, the Food and Drug Administration so our food is pure and our pharmaceuticals are safe. But they lump it all together and say get rid of all this government regulation. I think the history they need to think about is the last time they preached on the Senate floor about deregulation, they were successful in deregulating Wall Street, and look what happened to that. When I hear this sort of preachy: ``We have to get rid of government regulation,'' let's be a little more specific. There are some regulations, to be sure, that we should do away with. But when I hear them talk about trillions of dollars of regulation, a lot of that is what keeps our food pure, our drinking water safe, our workplaces safe, our quality of life better for the broad middle class. Let's not forget that. I wish to speak for the last 5 or 6 minutes about something my colleagues and I will be debating fairly soon; that is, the pending trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. It is a bit of deja vu--as Yogi Berra said, deja vu all over again. The promise of jobs is an echo we hear about every 3 or 4 years: Time to do a new free-trade agreement; time to promise lots and lots of new job creation; promise more exports for the United States. We heard it with NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, almost 20 years ago. We heard it with PNTR with China in the late 1990s. We heard it with the Central American Free Trade Agreement in the last decade--2003, 2004, 2005, 2006--and now we are hearing it again with Colombia and South Korea and Panama. I recall both Republican and Democratic administrations saying 200,000 new jobs created by NAFTA. I heard proponents of PNTR promise a more balanced trade relationship with China, and new, increased exports. We have seen increased exports to China but nothing like the number of--there were jobs created because of that, I acknowledge that, but nothing like the export of goods from China to the United States, which, in essence, is outsourcing jobs in the United States. There is a company in Bryan, OH, called the Ohio Art Company. They make something we are all familiar with, and that is the Etch A Sketch. We all played with it as kids. Walmart went to that company--the biggest retailer in the history of the world--and said: We want to sell your product for less than $10 at Walmart. Do my colleagues know what they did? They basically shut down production in the United States and moved to China so they could sell it for $10, costing hundreds of jobs in that northwest Ohio community. Before PNTR, before these promises about increased jobs, we had a $68 billion trade deficit in goods with China. Last year, it was $273 billion. About $600 million or $700 million every single day we bring in--we buy from China, then we sell to China. I hear this word ``unsustainable'' in this body all the time about Medicare, whatever they are talking about. But this is what is unsustainable. We can't keep adding to that trade deficit and think we are going to have good jobs. In April alone, our trade deficit with China was $21 billion--in 1 month, $21 billion. So when I hear, this year, the Korean Free Trade Agreement--and the President of the United States is going to submit it to Congress fairly soon, I assume, depending on what happens with the trade adjustment assistance; and this President has made this agreement with Korea, significantly better than the last President's trade agreement with Korea but not all that good yet--the Congressional Budget Office estimates this agreement will cost--in addition to the jobs issue, but hold on to that for a second--about $7 billion over the next 10 years--$7 billion. My conservative friends on the other side of the aisle are going to say: How are we going to pay for $7 billion? They want to offset cuts, they want to offset any other kind of spending, but they do not seem to want to offset spending on this trade agreement. So this trade agreement is costing us $7 billion. So free trade simply is not free. The administration says this agreement is expected to support--not create--70,000 jobs. Do the math. It is about $100,000 for every job supported. But do another piece of math, if I could ask the indulgence of the Presiding Officer. George Bush the first said for every $1 billion trade deficit or surplus, that translates--these are his numbers--into about 13,000 jobs. So when I mentioned that trade deficit with China a minute ago--$21 billion in just April alone--for every $1 billion, 13,000 jobs are either gained or lost. If it is a trade deficit of $21 billion, that means 13,000 jobs for every $1 billion of loss. So you can see, without belaboring this point or putting too fine a point on it, there is significant job loss from these trade agreements. The Obama administration sought to address the Bush administration's neglect of American automakers, which the free-trade agreement the Bush administration negotiated with Korea did. But I fear we have not gone far enough. Korea is the most closed automotive market in the world to America and other foreign autos. No manufacturer can export vehicles in significant volumes into Korea--not Toyota, not Volkswagen, not Ford, not Fiat. U.S. vehicle exports to Korea in 2010 were 7,500 units. In a country approaching perhaps 90 million people in Korea--80, 90, 95 million people--we sell them 7,500 cars? Imports currently make up about 6 percent of the Korean auto market. Six percent of the cars driven around in South Korea are made somewhere other than South Korea. That is not quite fair trade. This bill, this Korean Free Trade Agreement, does not get us there. The Obama administration approved it, but nothing like it needs to be. So I just caution my colleagues, the Korea Free Trade Agreement is a permanent agreement. If we pass this agreement in a couple months, what we pass in establishing that formalized trade agreement with that major industrial country in East Asia is a permanent relationship. It does not sunset like a so-called authorization. It does not sunset the way many of my colleagues have recently let the trade adjustment assistance lapse for service workers and for workers who lose their jobs to countries we do not have a free-trade agreement with. Some of my colleagues insist trade adjustment assistance needs to be reauthorized in the short-term, little baby steps, year-by-year intervals, while they press for more permanent trade agreements. Here is the deal. Madam President, I know you in North Carolina have shown real leadership on these trade relationships. Here is the deal conservative politicians in the Senate and in the House of Representatives want. They want us to pass permanent trade agreements, but then they may want to take care of workers for just 1 year at a time, 6 months at time--6 weeks at a time the last time they reauthorized this. This does not make sense. The trade agreement with Korea is a significant problem for job growth in our country and for protecting jobs in our country. There is nothing wrong with the word ``protecting'' jobs in our country. But at the same time, before we even consider that, we need to make sure we pass the trade adjustment assistance. We should have learned our lessons from NAFTA, from NPTR with China, from CAFTA, and from these other trade agreements that the promises coming from an administration on job creation, when it comes to trade agreements, are mostly empty promises. I yield the floor. I thank Senator Thune from South Dakota for his indulgence.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, for the last couple weeks, I traveled to senior centers from Toledo to Youngstown to Columbus to talk with seniors and health professionals about the threats facing their Medicare benefits. We owe it to our children, we owe it to our grandchildren, we owe it to succeeding generations to reduce our Nation's deficit. We know almost exactly one decade ago we had the largest budget surplus in the history of our country. We know during the next 8 years--as Congress and President Bush cut taxes mostly on the wealthy in 2001 and 2003, began two wars with Iraq and Afghanistan and didn't pay for them, did a prescription drug benefit, a supposed benefit that was, in many ways, a bailout for the drug and insurance companies and didn't pay for it, and deregulated Wall Street--during those 8 years, we had the largest budget deficit in American history. We went from the largest budget surplus in American history to the largest budget deficit in American history. What we see in the Republican budget now, as we talk about Medicare and as they talk about Medicare--ending Medicare as we know it, turning Medicare over to the insurance companies--what we are seeing is sort of the same old game, the same old song from people who do not much like Medicare; that is, cut taxes on the wealthy again and pay for those tax cuts--you have to find a way to pay for them--I guess, pay for those tax cuts by cutting the Medicare benefits seniors have earned. That is what is troubling to me about this Republican budget. Too many Americans are facing a middle-class squeeze, working hard, playing by the rules, finding it still hard to get ahead in this economy. Many parents, many Americans in their forties and fifties and sixties are part of a sandwich generation. They are helping their parents as their medical costs go up and their parents are not earning very much. They are maybe getting Social Security, maybe something else, and they are trying to pay for their children's college, so this is the wrong time, as if there would ever be a right time, to turn Medicare over to the insurance industry, Medicare as we know it. That is why Senators Cardin from Maryland, McCaskill of Missouri, and Tester of Montana wrote a letter to the Vice President calling for the Republican plan to end Medicare as we know it to be taken off the table during the deficit reduction negotiations. I want to see our deficit reduced. I want to see us have a long-term plan to get our budget deficit under control the way we did in the 1990s and turned budget problems inherited by President Clinton-- bequeathed by Presidents Reagan and Bush, inherited by President Clinton--how we got from a budget deficit to a budget surplus. The statistics behind Medicare are clear. The number of seniors lifted out of poverty in these 45 years, the number of families who have the help to care for a parent or grandparent--we can't reverse those gains for the ultimate form of rationing health care for seniors. Make no mistake, this is rationing health care. When you shift the cost, you give a senior citizen a voucher--you give them an $8,000 check, and that check goes to insurance companies to pay for health insurance. If it runs short, what happens--and it likely will--they pay out-of-pocket. That really is rationing. If you are not a fairly wealthy senior and you run out of this privatized Medicare voucher, you will reach into your pockets and pay for it. That is rationing because many seniors won't be able to pay for it. When I hear the terms ``death panels'' and ``rationing'' and all these things that conservative politicians usually enthralled in the insurance industry are telling this Chamber and down the hall in the House of Representatives--real rationing is when seniors can not afford to pay out-of-pocket for their health insurance costs because of what this Republican budget plan does. Their plan calls for vouchers for private health coverage, doubling their out-of-pocket costs in the first year alone. The average senior would receive an $8,000 voucher; however, in the first year of the voucher program, out-of-pocket expenses would, according to the Congressional Budget Office--not a Democratic group, not a Republican group, a down-the-middle group--the Congressional Budget Office said seniors' out-of-pocket expenses would double to more than $12,500 annually. As I said, at the same time, Republicans are going to take these savings to the budget, these cuts to senior care, to Medicare, and finance tax cuts for those people who earn 10 times or more than the average retirement income of a Medicare recipient. Seniors would see their prescription drug costs explode. In the health care bill, we cut the costs of prescription drugs to those seniors who are in the coverage gap, the so-called doughnut hole, cut them in half. That would go away. In other words, the Republican budget plan in my State across the river from the Presiding Officer's State would hand an $89 million prescription drug bill tab to split among 139,000 Ohio seniors. Tens of thousands of Ohio seniors, thousands of West Virginia seniors, tens of thousands of seniors in the assistant majority leader's State of Illinois would be paying tens of millions of dollars in higher drug costs as a result of the Republican budget bill. The Senate voted that bill down, largely along party lines. Republicans continue to want to privatize Medicare, to turn Medicare over to the insurance industry. It simply would put insurance companies in charge of Medicare. It would put insurance companies in charge of the health of our seniors. Is that what we want? That is why we had Medicare in 1965, because insurance companies were in charge of health care for seniors, meaning half of the seniors had no health insurance--people over 65 in the year 1965. Now roughly 99 percent of seniors have health insurance, and that is because of this program that most of us dearly love and the huge majority of our constituents in West Virginia, Illinois, and Ohio love, and that is called Medicare. Now, Mr. President, put aside all I have said for a moment. Forget about vouchers, forget about privatization, forget about insurance companies even, and think in a personal way about what Medicare has done in this country. Medicare was created in 1965, passed mostly by Democrats in the House and Senate, signed by President Lyndon Johnson in July of 1965. We have had Medicare for 45 years. Think about what it has done. Forget all the academic and policy questions. What Medicare has done is helped people in this country live longer, healthier lives. What that means is people have been able to get to know their grandchildren. Somebody who is 65 or 70 or 75 or 80, and enjoys generally good health, has had years-- maybe decades--of helping to raise a grandchild, getting to know their granddaughter, getting to play with their grandson, all the things grandparents want to do. Senior citizens have had a greater quality of life because of what we call Medicare, and they have gotten to know their grandchildren better. Think what that means to children. They have gotten to know their grandparents better and have gotten the kind of guidance only grandparents can give. Margaret Mead, the great anthropologist, a few decades ago said ``wisdom and knowledge are passed from grandparent to grandchild.'' Wisdom and knowledge are passed from grandparent to grandchild, because we all know if we have children, our kids don't always listen to us but our grandchildren do. I have a 3-year-old grandson named Clayton who lives in Columbus, OH. When I am in Washington, my wife picks him up a lot of days after school. We don't live in Columbus, but she goes down there and picks him up after school. Every day Clayton gets to spend with his grandmother and, when I am home, every weekend with his grandfather. I get to see Clayton not as often as I want but fairly often. What Margaret Mead said is right. Grandparents impart a special wisdom and knowledge to grandchildren. Think of the benefit grandchildren have because of their grandparents. I wouldn't have looked at it quite the same way until I had my first grandson 3 years ago, but I understand that now. That, to me, is the real beauty of Medicare. It has helped this country's seniors live longer healthier lives and has helped this country's children be raised in a moral way, in a practical way, in an educational way, better than they would have if their grandparents hadn't been around. When I hear Republicans say they want to get rid of Medicare as we know it, they want to turn Medicare and senior health care over to the insurance industry, we know what will happen. Seniors won't live longer healthier lives because they will have lost Medicare as we know it. That is why we sent a letter to Vice President Biden--Senator Tester, Senator McCaskill, Senator Cardin, and I did--to say, take Medicare off the table. We need to deal with this budget deficit, but don't mess with Medicare while we are doing it. It is that simple. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, this month marks commencement season at our great colleges and universities across Ohio and the Nation. I have had the honor of speaking at a few this year--Owens Community College, Ashland University, Cleveland Marshall College of Law, and Ohio Northern University. It is a day of achievement and accomplishment, a reaffirmation of why education is a key to our economic prosperity. But it is also a day of anxiety. Graduates are leaving campuses to enter a difficult job market saddled with student debt. Approximately 2/3 of Ohioans who attend a private or public 4-year college or university graduate with an average of nearly $26,000 in student loan debt. Unfortunately, as student loan debt levels continue to grow, the Nation's hiring climate remains sluggish. This has led to limited employment opportunities for recent graduates; nearly half of the 2009 graduating class is currently unemployed or employed in a position that does not require a college degree. Such circumstances are leading to undue personal stress and potentially, a lifetime of financial challenges. Far too often, individuals and families are becoming part of the ``sandwich generation'' where families are paying for the cost of their children's education while also taking care of their aging parents. That is why last year I supported--and the President signed into law, the Health and Education Reconciliation Act, the single largest federal investment in student aid in generations. The law ends wasteful subsidies to private lenders through the Federal Family Education Loan, FFEL, Program. In doing so, we cut out the middleman and loans are now not only originated, but also serviced, by the U.S. Department of Education. By ending subsidies to private banks, we saved billions of dollars, and used the savings to allow the maximum Pell Grant award to reach a historic level. We made it easier for students to repay loans through the Income-Based Repayment Program. We did this all at no cost to the taxpayer. For many colleges and universities, the transition from FFEL to the Direct Loan program has been a resounding success as there has been no disruption to borrowers or financial aid administrators. For those borrowers who are in the middle of the transition period, I, along with my good colleague Senator Franken, am introducing the Student Loan Simplification and Opportunity Act. This legislation, by simplifying loan repayment and reducing the loan amount, benefits college graduates. And this legislation, by removing costly subsidies provided to private lenders, saves 1.8 billion dollars that will be reinvested in the Pell Grant Program, thereby ensuring that other deserving students can afford to attend college. The Student Loan Simplification and Opportunity Act would allow students with both FFEL loans and Direct Loans to voluntarily transfer their FFEL debt to a Direct Loan servicer over a nine-month period. By converting loans, the likelihood that a borrower may miss a payment and end up further in debt would decrease. On average, a borrower with multiple loan servicers has a 20 percent higher chance of defaulting on their loan payments. Yet, this program not only simplifies a borrower's loan repayment, it reduces the amount owed. Borrowers who transferred their debt would be rewarded with up to a 2 percent reduction in the principal amount of their FFEL loan. I am proud to introduce the Student Loan Simplification and Opportunity Act, as this legislation will benefit both borrowers and taxpayers.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, this month marks commencement season at our great colleges and universities across Ohio and the Nation. I have had the honor of speaking at a few this year--Owens Community College, Ashland University, Cleveland Marshall College of Law, and Ohio Northern University. It is a day of achievement and accomplishment, a reaffirmation of why education is a key to our economic prosperity. But it is also a day of anxiety. Graduates are leaving campuses to enter a difficult job market saddled with student debt. Approximately 2/3 of Ohioans who attend a private or public 4-year college or university graduate with an average of nearly $26,000 in student loan debt. Unfortunately, as student loan debt levels continue to grow, the Nation's hiring climate remains sluggish. This has led to limited employment opportunities for recent graduates; nearly half of the 2009 graduating class is currently unemployed or employed in a position that does not require a college degree. Such circumstances are leading to undue personal stress and potentially, a lifetime of financial challenges. Far too often, individuals and families are becoming part of the ``sandwich generation'' where families are paying for the cost of their children's education while also taking care of their aging parents. That is why last year I supported--and the President signed into law, the Health and Education Reconciliation Act, the single largest federal investment in student aid in generations. The law ends wasteful subsidies to private lenders through the Federal Family Education Loan, FFEL, Program. In doing so, we cut out the middleman and loans are now not only originated, but also serviced, by the U.S. Department of Education. By ending subsidies to private banks, we saved billions of dollars, and used the savings to allow the maximum Pell Grant award to reach a historic level. We made it easier for students to repay loans through the Income-Based Repayment Program. We did this all at no cost to the taxpayer. For many colleges and universities, the transition from FFEL to the Direct Loan program has been a resounding success as there has been no disruption to borrowers or financial aid administrators. For those borrowers who are in the middle of the transition period, I, along with my good colleague Senator Franken, am introducing the Student Loan Simplification and Opportunity Act. This legislation, by simplifying loan repayment and reducing the loan amount, benefits college graduates. And this legislation, by removing costly subsidies provided to private lenders, saves 1.8 billion dollars that will be reinvested in the Pell Grant Program, thereby ensuring that other deserving students can afford to attend college. The Student Loan Simplification and Opportunity Act would allow students with both FFEL loans and Direct Loans to voluntarily transfer their FFEL debt to a Direct Loan servicer over a nine-month period. By converting loans, the likelihood that a borrower may miss a payment and end up further in debt would decrease. On average, a borrower with multiple loan servicers has a 20 percent higher chance of defaulting on their loan payments. Yet, this program not only simplifies a borrower's loan repayment, it reduces the amount owed. Borrowers who transferred their debt would be rewarded with up to a 2 percent reduction in the principal amount of their FFEL loan. I am proud to introduce the Student Loan Simplification and Opportunity Act, as this legislation will benefit both borrowers and taxpayers.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate conducted a procedural vote on whether it would begin deliberation on S. 1038, the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011. Due to inclement weather, my flight from Cleveland returned to Cleveland, and I was unable to make this vote. However, if I had been in attendance, I would have voted ``yea.'' I have long expressed concerns about the PATRIOT Act, specifically about its scope and effectiveness. For too long, Americans have been asked to cede their constitutional rights in the name of national security. There is no question that our law enforcement authorities need the tools to fight terrorism and keep Americans safe, but security is not a zero sum game. Indeed, it is certainly possible to extend the PATRIOT Act while building in some additional checks and balances. But this extension does not include them. Despite my misgivings about this extension, I believe that it is important that the Senate directly address this legislation that is important to both our Nation's security and well as our civil liberties.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

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 appreciate the words of the Senator from Nebraska about these trade agreements. I take them at face value. I know he means well. I know he believes these trade agreements help the American people. I also know every time there is a major trade agreement in front of this Congress--the Presiding Officer's first one, I believe, and mine, was something called the North American Free Trade Agreement. They promised and promised, saying there would be all kinds of jobs and our trade surplus would grow; that it would be not just more jobs but better paying jobs. It did not quite work out that way with NAFTA. Then they did the same kind of promise and overpromise with PNTR, normal trade relations with China. In Mexico with NAFTA we had a trade surplus not too many years before NAFTA was signed, and it turned into a multibillion-dollar trade deficit. With China we had a small trade deficit. A deficit in trade means we buy more from that country than we sell to that country. President Bush said a $1 billion trade surplus or deficit turns into--he had different estimates, but between 13,000 and 19,000 jobs is what he used to say. Whether or not that is precise is a bit beside the point. The point is, if we are selling a lot more than we are buying, it is going to create jobs in our country. If we are buying a lot more than we are selling, we are going to lose manufacturing jobs. We went to literally hundreds of billions of dollars in trade deficit with China after PNTR. If we go into any store in the country we see the number of products made in China that used to be made in Vermont or Ohio or Michigan or Pennsylvania or Mississippi or wherever. So we know with these trade agreements, every time they come to the floor the promise is they are going to create jobs for Americans. They did it with NAFTA. They did it with PNTR with China. They did it with the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Now they are saying the same thing with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia, that it is going to create American jobs. Well, it doesn't ever. Maybe the theory is good. I don't think the theory is very good, but maybe it is, but it doesn't seem to work out that way. I urge my colleagues to listen to what these supporters of trade agreements say, to be sure; trust but verify. Ask the tough questions: Why is this going to create more jobs? We know the cost of the South Korea trade agreement is literally $7 billion. It is going to cost us a lot of money. They are not paying for it. These fiscal conservatives here don't want to take away the subsidies from the oil industry. They also don't want to pay for the trade agreement that is going to cost us $7 billion, plus the lost jobs that come about as a result. We know what these lost jobs mean to Mansfield, OH. We know what they mean to Sandusky and Chillicothe and Cleveland and Dayton, proud cities with a proud middle class that have seen these manufacturing jobs so often go straight to Mexico, go straight to China, go straight to countries all over the world after we sign these trade agreements or after we change these rules about trade. At a minimum, I have asked the President of the United States by letter, with 35 or so Senators who also signed this letter--and we will release it and send it to the President tomorrow--underscoring the President's commitment and the commitment of the U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Kirk, and the President's economic adviser, Gene Sperling, who said they will not send these free trade agreements to the Congress until the President has had an opportunity to sign trade adjustment assistance. Trade adjustment assistance simply says when you lose your job because of a trade agreement, you at least are eligible for assistance for job retraining. To me, the problem is the trade agreements and they are costing us jobs. But at a minimum, the great majority of Democratic Senators here understands, along with the President, that we don't pass these trade agreements without helping these workers who are going to lose their jobs. To me, it is a little bit counterintuitive: Why pass these trade agreements at all if we expect job loss to come from them. But the other side of the argument is that jobs will increase overall, although it doesn't seem to work that way. But everybody knows some people are going to lose jobs as a result of these trade agreements. That is a bit of circular thinking that I don't particularly buy. But at a minimum, because so often when these trade agreements pass, conservative Republican--sort of pro corporate interest--Senators, will say, Well, we want to take care of these workers and let's pass a trade agreement, and then they don't get around to taking care of the workers. That is why we have to do trade adjustment assistance first and to begin to enforce these trade rules. We saw in Ohio alone in the last 3 or 4 years, because we enforced some trade rules--because the President of the United States, President Obama, and the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission stood up and enforced trade rules on China's gaming the system on tires, on oil country tubular steel, and less so, but on coded paper--we have seen jobs in the United States come back because we are leveling the playing field so they can't game the system as much. That is why it is important that we take care of workers before these trade agreements come to the Congress and then we will debate trade agreements. I hope we can defeat them--I think it is going to be hard-- and we make sure we do the enforcement of these trade rules that are now in existence that are now part of the law and get that in place and strengthen that before we pass these trade agreements. It is a pretty simple thing to do, but it is important. In one of the trade agreements the Senator from Nebraska mentioned, he was talking about the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. I could speak on each of the three to the point of perhaps boring some of my colleagues. But on the one trade agreement that is particularly egregious with the country of Colombia, just last year, 50 trade unionists, 50 labor activists in Colombia were murdered--50 murders. They are saying, the supporters of these trade agreements say yes, but they are getting better in Colombia and fewer trade activists are getting murdered so it is getting better. Not that long ago, a labor rights lawyer was shot. He did not die. He survived, was injured badly. There is something a bit untoward about saying to this country, because you are getting better and fewer trade unionists are getting murdered, we ought to give them free trade, we ought to do a free trade agreement. I hope we will stand back. If we care about justice and human rights and about the values we embody of democracy and fair play, we shouldn't be passing a trade agreement with a country where the labor environment is such that these labor union activists who believe in collective bargaining and free association, collective bargaining--such as the consensus we have in this country around collective bargaining--at least we did until some radicals in Ohio and Wisconsin tried to write and pass legislation that unwinds some of that which has helped create a middle class. But if we believe in collective bargaining, if we believe in free association, if we believe in the right of the people to voluntarily organize and then bargain collectively, we shouldn't be passing a trade agreement with a country that has an environment where so many labor activists have been murdered. I wish to remind my colleagues again how important this trade adjustment assistance is before we pass these trade agreements. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the senior Senator from Virginia who is about to speak. I will be brief. I wish to applaud the President today on his comments and the administration's comments, especially the comments of Trade Ambassador Kirk and Gene Sperling, the President's top economic adviser. They have made it clear they will not submit the three free trade agreements--one with Colombia, one with Panama, and one with South Korea--until legislation has come to their desks to take care of the issue of trade adjustment assistance. This Congress, because of some objections on the other side of the aisle, allowed the trade adjustment assistance language to expire in February. That simply means many workers who lost their jobs because of free trade agreements, or lost their jobs because of trade--not necessarily the countries we had trade agreements with--were going to get some assistance so they could, in fact, be retrained so they could go back to work. Losing their jobs had everything to do with what happens in other ways but has nothing to do with their job performance or even their company's job performance. The President made the right decision by saying we are not going to move forward with these free trade agreements. I don't much like them, but that is not the point. We are not going to move forward until we have helped these workers find jobs. Second, we are going to make sure, as Senator Casey and I have said on the floor before, that the health coverage tax credit is also renewed. That matters, to be able to continue the health coverage of many workers. And, third, that the work of Senator Wyden, Senator Stabenow, and Senator McCaskill will continue, to work on trade enforcement in making sure these trade rules and trade laws that are in effect will actually be in force so we can protect American jobs. When we pass these trade agreements, they always cost us jobs. It is about time we take care of workers and communities that suffer from it. I thank Senator Webb, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, yesterday the White House announced it will not submit three pending free-trade agreements, FTAs, with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama until Congress reaches a deal on reauthorizing the trade adjustment assistance for workers programs, the so-called TAA. I applaud President Obama for putting the workers first before we do these trade agreements. The trade agreements are very controversial, as they always are. The promises are always that they will create jobs, and they rarely do. They usually result in a decrease in jobs. Yet too often Congress jettisons the safety net to protect those workers who lose their jobs because of these agreements. That is why I applaud President Obama for making this one clear. He will not send these trade agreements to Congress until Congress has sent to his desk--not talked about it, not debated it, not passed one committee or one House, but sent to his desk--trade adjustment assistance expansion. As my colleagues know, since we let this program expire in February because of Republican objections, Senator Casey and I went to the floor day after day in December and then again in February as Republicans continued to object just to continuing trade adjustment assistance as we had begun in the Recovery Act 2 years earlier. So what happened? Because of these Republican objections, we shut out service workers and we shut out manufacturing workers who had lost their jobs to countries with which we do not have a free-trade agreement. So when workers lost their jobs because of outsourcing of jobs to China or India, those workers couldn't get trade adjustment assistance until the Recovery Act, so they could get it in 2009 and in 2010. Because of Republican objections to continuation of that, they can't get it now. Also, people who lost their jobs that were in the service industries experienced this same kind of deadline on their eligibility. Since Congress made reforms to TAA in 2009, more than 185,000 additional trade-affected workers became eligible for training under the TAA for Workers Program. In 2010 alone, more than 227,000 workers participated in the TAA program, receiving training for jobs that employers are looking to fill. These are people who want to work. They lost their jobs because of a trade agreement. They can prove they lost their jobs because of a trade agreement. A company shuts down in Elery, OH, and goes to Mexico; a company shuts down in Steubenville, OH, and goes to New Delhi; a company shuts down in Lima, OH, and goes to Shanghai. When you can prove that, as you can in many cases, those workers should be eligible for assistance from the government to get trained to get back to work. The program also, of course, receives strong support from businesses that know a skilled workforce is critical to their economic competitiveness. But just 11 days ago--because of these Republican objections and because the TAA language was truncated--but just 11 days ago, the Labor Department denied the first three petitions filed by groups of workers seeking TAA assistance under pre-2009 TAA rules, including three workers in Uniontown, OH. The reason: They are service workers. In addition, the enhanced health coverage tax credit program also expired in February. HCTC helps trade-affected workers purchase private health insurance coverage to replace the employer-sponsored coverage they lost. It also helps those retirees who lose their benefits when the company for which they worked goes bankrupt. The HCTC prevents tens of thousands of Americans from falling into the ranks of the uninsured. But right now, if we do not act, we are simply giving these workers the cold shoulder. So I applaud the administration for saying, yesterday, we will pass no more free trade agreements without a deal on TAA. But this will require my Republican colleagues to come to the table and agree on a package. We have seen what unfair trade deals such as NAFTA and PNTR with China and CAFTA do to communities in Ohio and around the Nation. These are Americans who lost their jobs, lost their pensions, lost their health care--maybe all three--when the company they worked for moved operations overseas or went to bankruptcy court or faced a reduction in demand for their products due to unfair foreign competition. These Americans need TAA to get back on solid footing. These Americans need Congress to defend against unfair trade and to strengthen trade enforcement. There are several trade enforcement measures that Senator McCaskill and Senator Wyden and I and others have introduced, and I hope they will garner bipartisan support in this Chamber. Senator Blunt, Senator McCaskill, and I testified in front of the Trade Subcommittee that Senator Wyden chaired the other day and talked about some of these ideas and how to address them bipartisanly. TAA has been a core pillar of U.S. trade policy. It has long enjoyed bipartisan support because it helps American workers who lose their jobs and their financial security as a result of globalization. I thank Senator Casey, Senator Stabenow, Senator Baucus, and Senator Wyden for their leadership on trade adjustment assistance--language in getting this legislation put forward. Just the fairness of this: Again, put yourself--something we do not do enough here--in the shoes of a worker in Champaign, IL, or Boulder, CO, or Mansfield, OH, a worker who shows up for work for 15 years, who has been a productive worker, helped his company make money, was paid a middle-class, decent wage, and then all of a sudden their plant shuts down because the jobs are outsourced to China. They did not do anything wrong. Are we going to do nothing to help them? Are we going to do nothing to help their communities? It is pretty clear to me, the overwhelming consensus of the American people say: Give them the opportunity to get training for another job if we cannot save their jobs. Give them some assistance on health insurance so they can reach into their pocket, with some assistance through a significant tax credit, to continue the insurance for their families. It will mean many of them will not lose their homes. Far too many people who lose their jobs then lose their health insurance and then lose their homes. We have an opportunity actually to do something about this. So the President was exactly right. Do not bring these three free trade agreements--with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea--to the floor until we have first taken care of the workers who lose their jobs--not at the same time because we know what happens when we try to do that. All of a sudden, the assistance for workers gets jettisoned. But it must be done first to help these workers with their health insurance and with their retraining. It will matter for literally hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of American families. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from New York who has been a real leader on this issue to bring more tax fairness to the American people and take away the subsidies of these five companies that absolutely do not need those subsidies and to help deal with the budget deficit. We can do that with one simple step that far too many conservative politicians in this city are resisting. I join Senator Schumer in expanding on his comments. We think our Nation's spending and its budget should reflect our Nation's priorities, should reflect our investments in education, infrastructure, how it will strengthen our economic competitiveness, whether in Charleston, WV, or Ironton, OH, through the innovation of entrepreneurs and small businesses. Our Tax Code should also reflect our priorities to create jobs at home--to encourage companies to invest in clean energy to end our Nation's dependence on foreign dirty oil. Last week, unfortunately, we heard just how out of touch some politicians and their benefactors in the oil industry are with the real priorities and real problems facing our Nation--huge Federal deficits, $4-a-gallon gas, Americans struggling to find a job or put food on the table even if they are employed. I received a letter from Laurie from Lakewood, OH: This recession has hurt our family budget for the past three years. My husband and I have had our pay reduced. We cut our expenses--not going out to eat or to the movies or the department stores. My husband and I are both working second jobs to keep our kids in school and food on the table. We carpool and do everything we can to cut expenses. I'm at the end, I don't know where else to cut and I don't have the option of not putting gas in my tank because I have to get to my jobs. She said ``jobs,'' plural. Please, if you can do anything, it would help so many of us who are struggling. Laurie's story is similar to that of many other Americans and so many Ohioans from Ashton, OH, to Hamilton, from Lima to Gallipolis, the working mom who drives from home in the suburbs to work downtown; truckdrivers in Toledo where high gas prices jeopardize their ability to operate and transport products across the country; small business owners in Lima, in Zanesville, Findlay, Mansfield, and Chillicothe who worry that high gas prices cut into already razor-thin margins, where money spent on gas means less spent on finished products, goods, and services. Their stories stand in sharp contrast to what we heard last week when the CEOs of the five largest oil companies testified before the Senate Finance Committee. They insisted on holding on to those tax loopholes that they said before they do not want and they have acknowledged they will not use to expand production. A common refrain we hear from conservative Washington politicians is that just as American families are tightening their belts, so, too, should the Federal Government. Just ask Laurie and the thousands of other Ohioans who work hard and play by the rules and are doing everything they can to get by. What about big oil? They are doing just fine with windfall profits, billions and billions. The five largest oil companies made $32 billion in profits in the first quarter of this year. Based on that, over four quarters over this full calendar year of 2011, we can project the five companies' profits being $128 billion plus--$128 billion. Their profits are good. But when their profits are more than $30 billion in the first quarter alone, it is clear they do not need these taxpayer-funded giveaways. Americans spent 28 percent more for gas in the first 3 months of 2011 than they did in the same period in 2010. Meanwhile, the big five oil companies--BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell--made 38 percent more profit. The companies then used a major portion of these additional profits to buy back stock to enrich their board of directors, senior managers, and shareholders. These massive profits are possible by a misguided part of the Tax Code--one that allows them to take advantage of credits that are, in fact, meant to encourage American manufacturing. That is why the Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act is so important. The bill would end more than $2 billion in tax subsidy deductions and royalty relief that big companies receive each year. Consumers who are already paying for $4-a-gallon gas at the pump should not be forced to write another $2 billion check to companies that do not need it. But that is exactly what our Tax Code allows. To put it another way, it grants corporate welfare to Big Oil. It is unnecessary and undermines the actual manufacturing that can create jobs and strengthen our production of domestic clean energy. We should promote only those tax credits--only precisely those tax credits--that constitute an effective use of tax dollars. For example, manufacturers from across Ohio and the Nation have benefited from the 48(c) advanced manufacturing tax credits that help us move away from our dependence on foreign oil. Mr. President, 48(c) leverages public incentives to attract private sector investment. That means government and business working together to create jobs and build a clean energy economy. Seven Ohio companies were awarded $125 million in initial 48(c) funding in the first phase of last year. These companies and their workers--in Bedford, Bucyrus, Circleville, Dayton, Findlay, Perrysburg, and Toledo, OH--will retool their factories to build clean energy products from wind turbine bolts to energy-efficient lamps and home appliances to state-of-the-art solar panel technologies. I introduced the Security in Energy and Manufacturing Act--the SEAM Act--to extend the 48(c) program. The SEAM Act will promote grants as a means to invest in more companies, especially small- and medium-sized manufacturers that do not have tax liabilities or companies that struggle to find credit in the tight financial market. We want these manufacturing tax credits--very different from what the oil industry is demanding they keep because their tax incentives accomplish none of this. We are asking that those startup companies, those companies that are not yet so profitable, take these 48(c) tax credits because they simply do not have the tax liability yet. We are asking that those be part of the code so those companies can get some assistance as they begin to grow their businesses and conserve energy. This would further promote U.S. clean energy manufacturing and ensure our manufacturers produce all the component parts in the clean energy supply chain. Yet instead of adopting this valuable incentive, Republican opposition in the Senate and Republican opposition in the House forces us to continue to allow Big Oil to exploit the manufacturing deduction to extract oil from the ground. They do not need any more incentives to drill for oil when they are getting close to $100 a barrel. What they are doing is not manufacturing in any sense of the word. We need a more comprehensive reexamination of the corporate Tax Code. In the meantime, we should be able to agree there is no justification to continuing tax subsidies to companies that have no need for them. This legislation is modest. It is only in the scheme of a huge Federal budget, in the scheme of $125 billion profits for the oil companies. It is only in the scheme of that a first step. After removing these unnecessary tax loopholes, the Senate should work on cracking down on both reckless Wall Street speculators and OPEC members that manipulate prices through collusion and price fixing. One step is to take away the tax subsidies. Middle-class families in Dayton, Akron, Canton, Youngstown, Huntington, Charleston, in Beckley are reaching into their pockets and giving to the oil companies. We are taking that away. At the same time, the administration needs to crack down on Wall Street speculators that are gaming the system as they manipulate prices with OPEC nations through collusion and price fixing. By taking these necessary steps, we show how our spending and our Tax Code and our budget can reflect not only our priorities but how we can actually meet them. The time to ask is now. I ask my more conservative colleagues here to join us. It is a pretty easy step to move toward a better fiscal situation, a more coherent budget policy--that we eliminate these tax subsidies that have gone to America's five largest oil companies, some of the most profitable companies, frankly, in the history of the world. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 8 p.m. for debate only, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

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 just met in a room near the Senate floor with doctors and others from three of America's great children's hospitals: Rainbow Children's Hospital in Cleveland, Nationwide Children's Hospital in Columbus, and Cincinnati Children's Hospital. I think Ohio leads the Nation in the number of children's hospitals and, frankly, I think the quality of children's hospitals. There are so much we need to do--I know the Presiding Officer from North Carolina sits on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and has had an interest in this--where we don't quite focus enough attention on children's health. In the past, when we did research in this country--and we are only now beginning to change this--we used to think about children as just small adults, and if you needed X milligrams in a prescription for a 150-pound adult, for a 30- pound child you gave them one-fifth as much. We now realize that is not the way we should do research or practice medicine. So we have seen a lot of progress, and much of that comes from the activism, if you will, of doctors and nurses and administrators at Nationwide Children's in Columbus, Cincinnati Children's, and Rainbow Children's in Cleveland, affiliated with the University Hospital. We have been able, through a longtime program--about a dozen years old now--to do something called children's gradual medical education in training pediatricians. We have also seen it find its way into making pharmaceuticals--something called 340B--and getting pharmaceuticals, particularly for orphan drugs and rare diseases, to children's hospitals, which helps many small children in this country. We are also working on legislation--and Kit Bond, the Republican Senator from Missouri who retired in January, and I worked on this--to really focus on pediatric research and designate a handful of children's hospitals--maybe 15 or 20--around the country, some of the best research hospitals, to get them more focused on children's research because even though we have done better, we are not doing well enough, and this is an opportunity to do that. So I wanted to share on the floor with my colleagues the importance of this legislation, the importance of that focus on children's hospitals, the importance of training pediatricians, and the importance of children's hospitals overall to our Nation's health, especially as regards the future of our Nation and our children. Madam President, I yield the floor.

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, yesterday across this country, we celebrated Mother's Day, marking the contribution of mothers across our country. But 2 months ago, the health of tens of thousands of expectant mothers and their unborn children was threatened by a drug company putting profit over public health. Two months ago, there was justified public outrage that the cost of a drug hormone, progesterone, to prevent premature births went from approximately $10 a dose--20 doses are needed through the course of a pregnancy--to $1,500 per dose. The entire course of the 20-week treatment, therefore, was about $200 three months ago. Two months ago, it went to $30,000--$200 to $30,000. This was once an affordable, common treatment to help women facing high-risk labor. I visited Toledo Children's Hospital, MetroHealth in Cleveland, and St. Elizabeth's Health Center in Youngstown to hear directly from patients and physicians and hospital executives about how the outrageous price increase affects them. Patients explained what it was like to overcome a previous miscarriage and rely on this progesterone to carry to full term today. Physicians and public health advocates explained the risk to women and children's health if the therapy were no longer affordable and accessible. Hospital administrators and State Medicaid directors worried what such an exorbitant increase would mean to already-stretched budgets. Meanwhile, several colleagues and I began to ask questions about how and why the increase happened in the first place. We are concerned about how companies, private companies, abuse the FDA approval process or manipulate existing rules to shortchange consumers while those companies reap massive windfall profits. That is especially so because, in addition to affixing such a high cost to the drug, this company, KV Pharmaceuticals from St. Louis, sent a letter threatening a cease and desist order to compounding pharmacies--those pharmacies that actually make their own progesterone, in this case--a cease and desist order to prevent these pharmacies from producing it, further solidifying KV Pharmaceutical's monopolization in the marketplace. All the while, pregnant women are left without the critical medicine their doctors prescribe for them, and either taxpayers foot the bill, insurance companies foot the bill, driving the price up, or women simply do without, increasing the number of miscarriages, increasing the number of low-birth-weight babies, increasing the cost to taxpayers, and increasing the heartache in mother after mother and father after father. Fortunately, in an unusual response--unusual in the sense that this case was so dramatically outrageous and unbelievably greedy on the part of KV Pharmaceutical executives--the FDA did something it doesn't normally do: It asserted its authority and made clear it would not enforce the cease and desist order. What was KV's response after the public outrage, after the refusal to enforce the cease and desist order, therefore allowing the pharmacies to keep producing the progesterone? It reduced the price from $1,500 a dose--remember, it was $10 per dose as recently as 3 months ago. They take a shot every week for 20 weeks during the pregnancy. It was $10 a dose, and they raised it to $1,500. But do you know what they did after the FDA and a small number of Democratic Senator's pushed them, embarrassed them in public? They brought the price down to $690 a dose. It went from $10 when compounding pharmacies were doing it, to $1,500 when they thought they could get away with it, to $690--as if they thought they were doing America's women a favor. That means instead of it being $30,000 for the whole cost of the pharmaceutical, the 20 doses, it would be about $15,000. What a bargain. On top of that, they did what companies whose hands are caught in the cookie jar always do: They hired high-powered Washington, DC, lobbyists to fight for their rights, this exclusivity for this drug, trying to prohibit the critical work of compounding pharmacists. I agree with drug companies; generally they need to recoup their investment. I want America's drug companies to do the boldest, most innovative, most progressive research in the world, and I want them to make a profit doing it so they can afford to do it and keep doing it. They should reflect the amount of R&D to bring drugs to market, the cost of their manufacture, the cost of their distribution, but in the case of this progesterone, the case of this pharmacy compound, taxpayers--in this case, through the National Institutes of Health-- funded the initial research and continue to fund critical research on premature births. KV Pharmaceutical didn't do the research; they bought the exclusive rights to a monopoly by reimbursing another company-- contracting with them--I believe that actually conducted the clinical trials and incurring the costs needed for FDA approval. Something is very wrong when a company with limited R&D investments can grossly overprice a drug that in its absence virtually guarantees an increase in premature births. Think of the greed involved here. They paid some number of millions of dollars to do a clinical trial, which was a good thing. They then brought the price from $10 to $1,500--times 20, again, with the number of doses people need in their treatment. With an initial investment of less than $200 million, the first year they would have reaped over $3 billion in revenue. Those are the kinds of numbers they were operating on, as if that is fair. When a company used taxpayer-funded research to produce a drug so important that it reduces infant mortality and birth defects, that company should also take on the responsibility for pricing it in a reasonable manner. But prices should never be inflated, particularly on a public health drug where this company did not do the basic foundational research; all it did was pay for clinical trials that did not prove much more than we already knew. A company should never be allowed to inflate prices of a public health drug to reap these kinds of massive profits, nor should the FDA approval process ever be manipulated to achieve that same end, which it was. While balancing the benefits of corporate profit--and I understand the balance, and I want the companies to continue to invest and move ahead--while it can be challenging balancing corporate earnings and societal benefits, we can't lose sight of our responsibility to make innovative medicines available and accessible to as many people as possible. I would like to close with a story about why all this matters. Not too long ago--last month, I guess it was, early April--I was in Port Columbus International Airport about to fly to Washington when Karen Turano, whom I never met before, walked up to me to share her story. She has since e-mailed after our discussion where she talked about this drug, and she sent me this letter: I met you at the Columbus airport with my husband Thad and our 17-month-old son Ryker. Again, I just wanted to say thank you for the work you are doing to make the progesterone shots affordable again. Our first son, Tyler, was born August 18, 2008 and passed away the next day, August 19, 2008. I prematurely went into labor at 24 weeks and had an emergency C-section. Tyler was born at 9:59, weighing 1 pound 10 ounces. Thad went to be with [my son] since I was recovering from surgery. He called me early the next morning and told me the worst news a new mother could hear: There was nothing more that could be done and that Tyler would pass away. My mother- in-law took me to see and hold Tyler for the first and last time in his precious life. It was devastating. Thad and I have since worked with public health advocates to raise awareness on ways to prevent premature births--while following doctor's orders to wait 6 months before we tried again. After I became pregnant with Ryker, I was monitored closely and started the progesterone shots at 16 weeks which continued through 36 weeks. She had these shots through 20 consecutive treatments, once a week for 20 weeks. I am convinced that these shots allowed me to carry the pregnancy to term. Interrupting the letter for a moment, understand that when a doctor sees someone like Karen who has had a pregnancy like she had where a baby was born that prematurely, that doctor understands that a progesterone like this progesterone we are talking about can make a huge difference in her carrying her baby to full term. Ryker was born at 38 weeks on October 30, 2009, my Halloween baby. My husband is a Columbus firefighter and I am an attorney practicing in workers' compensation. We look forward to more children in the near future, but the cost of this shot concerns us greatly. We have experienced the horrible pain of losing a child. No mother or father should have to go through this pain. She writes, signed: Sincerely, Karen, Thad, Ryker and Tyler Turano. Today is Karen's birthday, coincidentally. She celebrates with her son Ryker and husband Thad and other family and friends--and she does with Tyler in her memory. I thank Karen for sharing her story and the patients in Toledo, Cleveland, Youngstown, and across our Nation and State who have spoken about this, who deserve the affordable and accessible treatment they need. I am optimistic we can continue to find ways to ensure that the majority of women in this country will still have access to affordable versions of this critical lifesaving injection. It should not take public outrage, it should not take congressional action, it should not take the FDA altering a policy it normally doesn't alter for a company to do the right thing. Mr. President, as you know, with the unemployment in your State and the unemployment in my State and the problems we have as a nation on so many levels, this is particularly outrageous because this progesterone is a public health pharmacy compound that has worked and meant many more women will have safe births with growing, healthy children, contrasted with, if they do not have the opportunity to get this progesterone at a reasonable rate, at a reasonable price, we know what happens then. But rest assured, we will keep up the outrage, and we will continue to move through Congress, if that is what it takes, to get progesterone at an affordable price to America's women. It is an outrage what KV Pharmaceuticals did. I applaud the FDA for changing its policy to make it more accessible. I ask KV Pharmaceuticals to again come to the table. Instead of lobbying Congress to get their way and make a huge amount of money on a relatively small investment, I ask them to come to the table and work with us so we can make this very important pharmacy compound accessible to all American women whose doctors prescribe it to them. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I was presiding, before the senior Senator from Missouri took my place, and was listening to two of the last three speakers talk about their budget religion, if you will. I think about this. I think we have to look at a little bit of his history. I do not think I need a lecture on balancing a budget. I was in the House of Representatives in the 1990s when, without one Republican vote, we passed President Clinton's budget. We had a huge budget deficit in those days. That budget began us on the path to a balanced budget. I supported a balanced budget amendment in the mid-1990s. By 2000, the year President Clinton left office, we had the biggest budget surplus in American history. Then, in 2001, at the push of President Bush and his Republican colleagues in both Houses, this Congress passed a major tax cut, mostly for the wealthy in 2001; another major tax cut, mostly for the wealthy in 2003, both of which I voted against. President Bush, with intelligence that was not especially sound-- being gentle about it--took us into a war with Iraq, did not pay for it; took us into a war with Afghanistan, did not pay for it. I voted against the war in Iraq. In 2003 or 2004, he pushed through Congress by one vote--I remember I was in the House of Representatives opposing that bill, when they kept the rollcall open for 2 hours or longer that night. President Bush was on the phone with recalcitrant members of his party in the House of Representatives--pushed through a Medicare bill that was a bailout to the drug and insurance companies in the name of Medicare privatization, without paying for it. President Bush leaves office then, leaving the largest budget deficit in our history--going from the largest budget surplus, written, by and large, by the Democrats, because Republicans did not play ball with us during most of the 1990s. Then, after President Bush and the Republican leadership in many of those years, House-Senate, President Bush left us with the biggest budget deficit in history. When I hear this revisionist history on the Senate floor--I was not even going to talk about this today. But I heard two colleagues, for whom I have respect, one from Alabama, one from South Dakota, talk about this budget deficit in a way that simply is historically inaccurate--in the name of this deficit, and we have to deal with this deficit. I know the Presiding Officer is focused on that. A lot of us are focused on that. We have to deal with this deficit. But you don't do the same thing over again where you give big tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and then privatize Medicare. That is what they are doing. They are cutting health care, saying it is not sustainable, whatever that means, and giving major tax cuts to the rich, and we are saying that is not sustainable.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I wish to talk about teachers. In my State, the legislature just passed something called SB 5, and the Governor in Ohio signed it. It was a direct assault in many ways on the teaching profession. The discussions I hear from conservative politicians and their allies in the media--and they have many on editorial boards, especially in central Ohio--and the lack of respect they show for people who choose to teach as a profession is mind-boggling. We trust our children to teachers, yet we attack them--or too many politicians attack them. I am going to make it personal. I am going to start with my mom. My mom was a high school English teacher born in Mansfield, GA, in 1920. She taught in the era of segregation in Florida and Georgia. Raising my two older brothers and me in Mansfield, OH--she met my dad coming back from World War II, ending up in another Mansfield at the end of the war--she taught in an era of a growing American middle class. Like teachers throughout our history, she taught her students and her sons that education is a gateway to opportunity, that it can integrate a segregated nation and create a prosperous nation. At a time when our Nation needs our teachers the most, when our economy needs our students to succeed, it is appropriate to remind ourselves--in spite of this background noise I hear from so many conservative politicians about teachers' unions and about teachers who don't care, about teachers taking off in the summer and being done at 3 o'clock and all the kinds of attacks they like to make on teachers, I think it is important to remind ourselves of the importance of our teachers. This week, our country recognizes National Teacher Appreciation Week to give thanks and gratitude to teachers across our country to whom we entrust our children and who have made a difference in our lives. Let me share a few stories about great teachers in Ohio. Linda Michael of Pomeroy, OH, in Meigs County, down on the Ohio River, works with homeless students from K-12 to make sure they have equal access to the same education as other students, from Head Start to preschool to doctor referrals. She locates students in shelters, motels, and homes of relatives to make sure they have what they need: housing assistance, clothing, food, utilities, and mental health. Is this a teacher who quits at 3 o'clock and doesn't work during the summer? This is above and beyond the call of duty that most of us do in our society. Imagine growing up homeless, going to school, not having your own room, not having a room to share with your sibling, not having a place to go at night. We need teachers to take care of them. We need to do better as a society, but teachers are really a safety net for these children. Michelle Rzucidio-Rupright is an elementary school teacher in Cleveland. For her, teaching is not a 9-to-5 job. It means going to homeless shelters after school where her students live. It means buying supplies out of her pocket for her students in the classroom. She is a role model in the community. I know Senator McCaskill talks to teachers a lot and hears these things. How many teachers tell us they reach into their pockets? These are not Wall Street bankers. They are making sometimes as little as $35, $40, $45, $50,000 a year. Do we Senators reach into our pockets and buy folders for our office or buy pens? Do Senators do that? Do most businesspeople reach into their pockets to take care of these children? So many teachers do, to buy construction paper--the ones who teach grade school--to buy pens, to give kids money for lunch sometimes. Clearly, teachers play a role most people in this country don't play. David Fawcett is a Columbus drama teacher. He has helped generations of new immigrants and low-income students see something greater in themselves--more than just a poor immigrant child trying to make it. He encourages students to learn language and speech and culture through lines of a play or a musical, through elocution lessons under his guiding presence. He is another teacher who focuses on the individual unique needs of a child who may have been born in another country and may have parents who don't speak English. That child has different challenges from what I had with educated, English-speaking parents in Mansfield, OH, with lots of ideas and privileges. I was taught by my parents to read before I started kindergarten because I was smarter than other kids because I had parents who knew that mattered for me to get ahead and for the advantages I had. Mr. Fawcett clearly focuses on each child's individual, unique personality needs, situation, all that. John Keller is a government teacher in Orange, a suburb 15 miles east of Cleveland. Mr. Keller addresses the complexity of a subject with the simplest of tools: a sense of humor. He engages students as soon as they walk in the classroom, ensuring a passionate debate and empowering students to always stand up and speak out about the world around them. He makes them laugh. What better way to teach than engaging the students, having a big personality and making people laugh, and sometimes the teacher himself, I am sure, being the butt of the jokes, the humor about himself. Deb Lammers and Paul Lenz, teachers in Miller City in Putnam County, OH--one of Ohio's smallest counties, southwest of Toledo--are the kinds of math teachers every student deserves. They are patient and kind. They adapt teaching skills to student needs, arriving early and staying late. Again, all this stuff: Oh, teachers quit at 3'oclock; teachers don't work in the summer. All of this kind of thing from conservatives. Why they don't like teachers is beyond me, but why so many conservative politicians attack teachers for all kinds of things, I don't even pretend to understand. But Ms. Lammers and Mr. Lenz, teaching in Putnam County OH, arrive early and stay late, being accessible to students whenever they need help. Delette Walker is a retired grade school teacher in Shaker Heights. For decades, she helped children overcome the insecurity of shyness, instilling in them the confidence to read out loud, to sing in a musical to confront their fears. We know how young children--I have four, my wife and I do. And when they were young--they are not so shy now, but when they were young, they were fairly shy, and they had teachers who helped bring them out of their shell sometimes. As parents, we try to do that, with some success, but I have watched teachers with my own children. I have watched them help them believe in themselves, particularly young girls. I wanted to teach my daughters that they could accomplish anything--anything--and the fact of their gender, especially in that generation a few years ago, especially when I was a kid--girls were treated differently, and girls were not expected to achieve the way boys did or in too many cases the way boys were expected to. I saw teachers, with my own daughters, help them believe in themselves and in a big, important way. That is what Ms. Walker did, now retired, but with grade school children she taught in Shaker Heights. Diane Skelley, Vicky Hilliard, and Pat Carson are high school teachers in West Carrollton, OH, outside of Dayton. Through the written word, chemistry equations, or musicals, they are teachers who encourage students to try harder and reach higher, never to doubt one's talents. I know a young woman in my office was taught by these three teachers, and I know she believes she can--I know her parents too--take on the world and grow and learn something that women maybe a generation or two ago might not have been so successful at, and Diane Skelley, Vicky Hilliard, and Pat Carson--all three of them at West Carrollton helped her achieve that and helped countless others in Montgomery County in southwest Ohio to move forward, whether it was in English, music, or chemistry. Vicki Speakman was a Grandview high school teacher. Grandview is outside of Columbus. She was a Spanish teacher, a dedicated mother, a bedrock of the community. She was diagnosed with cancer. Ms. Speakman remained a constant presence at games and concerts, never missing a chance to share a smile, tell a joke, reach out to a lonely student. Ten years ago next month, she lost her fight with cancer, but, like all great teachers, her memory lives in the countless students whose lives are better because of her--not just her memory but the impact she had on these students. Whether they think of Ms. Speakman every day or every week, they live a life differently because of Ms. Speakman. That is true with so many of these teachers. When I think of this teacher--and I did not know Ms. Speakman, but when I think of her presence at ball games and school plays and I think of so many teachers I had at Mansfield Senior High School--my junior high was one that will probably make the pages here today laugh. The name of my junior high school was Johnny Appleseed Junior High School in north central Ohio, where Johnny Appleseed, 200 years ago or so, used to go around--it was a peculiar life he lived. He went around a country that was totally forested planting apple trees. But to each his own. He became a legend as a result. But I remember, in grade school and junior high and high school, so many teachers who would come to our plays. I played basketball in eighth grade and played baseball and basketball in high school. I would see teachers--not just the coaches but teachers--come to the games, the Friday night basketball games or the Tuesday afternoon baseball games or the school plays on Saturday. They were part of the community, cheering on their students, not showing favorites but caring particularly for students who were a little more shy or a little less talented who might need a bump up or encouragement from their teacher. The same goes for Jackie Geary, who taught reading for nearly 45 years in Dayton. She was the matriarch of a family of educators. Her husband Mike is a professor at the University of Dayton, one of our great universities in Ohio. Her daughter Beth is a special needs teacher for families of U.S. military personnel in the country of Japan. Aside from her constant smile and laughter, she reminded all who knew her that one of her great responsibilities was to read to a child each and every night. Jackie passed away last month after a long battle with cancer. Up until her very last days, she insisted on teaching the most valuable lesson of all: compassion and love and commitment. Again, these are teachers who go above and beyond the call of duty not just to collect a paycheck, not to go home at 3 o'clock, not to be off in the summer and not be a part of the community. Ms. Geary and Ms. Speakman gave so much of their lives to their students. Both passed away, Ms. Speakman some time ago, Ms. Geary more recently. Both will be remembered, and their impact will be seen throughout. Sandy Ryan is a special-ed preschool teacher in Cleveland. She first taught special needs adults. She then went to college later in life to earn a master's degree to teach special needs children. She buys her students coats in the winter, supplies, including book bags, and coats for children who can't afford them. Again, we don't pay teachers a lot. They are barely in the middle class in terms of their income if they are a single parent and on a teacher's salary. Yet they reach into their pockets. This isn't just buying pencils and pens and occasional lunch money; this is a teacher who buys coats in the winter sometimes for her students because she teaches in a low-income area. Ms. Donna Marie Shurr is a high school teacher in Oberlin. She partners with local and international projects--water projects in the community, to building homes in Jamaica, to schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan. She inspires students to believe that education is continuous and service is a lifelong pursuit that extends beyond the classroom. She is a teacher who, by showing by example, teaching by example, helps these students navigate the rest of their lives. They have a commitment to service beyond the classroom, beyond their workday, beyond their family, a commitment to service in the community, and it doesn't stop at our borders. With Ms. Shurr from Oberlin, not far from where I live, it is international also. Ms. Dean Blase is an English teacher at Clark Montessori School in Cincinnati. I visited Clark last year. It was a finalist for the competition for President Obama to deliver its commencement speech, losing out at the last minute to a school in Michigan. Teachers such as Ms. Blase instill values of curiosity and wonder in their students from diverse backgrounds, encouraging academic achievement and community service. Teachers are counselors, coaches, mentors. They serve as surrogate parents. They are friends of students at the right time. They are advisers, they are cheerleaders, they are partners, they are--fill in the blank--that any of us can do because we have had good teachers in our lives. They so often go the extra step. They drive talented pupils to competitions and scholarship interviews. They are an essential part of our communities. Yet, in Ohio, SB 5 is an amazing thing. It basically takes away rights from teachers, collective bargaining rights. I know teachers-- when they collectively bargain, they sit down at the school board and, sure they negotiate for decent wages, health care, and a pension, but they also negotiate for class size. I was talking to a teacher at a roundtable at a church right off Capital Square a couple of months ago, and she teaches in a Columbus suburb. But she talked about in negotiations how they negotiate class size because she knows, no matter what she is paid or no matter what benefits she has, she wants to be a very good teacher. She cannot be as good a teacher if there are too many students in the classroom because she cannot give them the kind of individual attention she would want to give them. Yet the Governor, the legislature, because of this ideological mission they are on, want to bust teachers unions, they want to, apparently, downgrade the respect teachers have in the community. Maybe they think they should become bankers or doctors or lawyers so they can make more money. I do not know why they think that. But what that means is--I am tired of hearing parents tell me and young people tell me: My daughter or I or whoever was going to be a teacher, and they were studying at Miami University or Ohio University or Toledo or Hiram College, whatever, and they decided--when they hear all these politicians, conservative, mostly Republican politicians, in Ohio, Columbus, downgrading teachers and criticizing the profession of teacher--they think: Why do I want to do that? I am not going to make a lot of money. If I am not going to have any respect from the people who run my State, why do I want to be a teacher--in spite of the fact they did want to be a teacher. I am also hearing from young teachers who are now in the classroom waging these fights that it is not easy teaching kids who do not have much advantage, it is not easy teaching kids who have discipline problems, it is not easy teaching kids whose parents are not particularly engaged for reasons of dysfunctional families or income or all the reasons parents are not as involved as we would like them to be. It is hard enough to do that without a bunch of Republican conservative politicians criticizing the profession in saying: They quit at 3 o'clock, they do not work in the summers, they are lazy, whatever they say about them. So I wished to talk about teachers who have affected my life. Most of these teachers I have mentioned have taught people in my office. We walked around the office and said: Tell me about some teachers. Almost every one of these teachers is somebody who has helped to produce stars, absolute stars, in my office. That is one reason I wanted to share their stories, and I wanted to share their stories because I think most of us who are fairminded--unless we are elected to legislatures and rightwing politicians--most of us care about education, most of us care about teachers, most of us appreciate what teachers gave to us, most of us honor them and respect them. But you are not honoring and respecting teachers, you are not honoring and respecting perhaps the most important profession in this country, when you take away their rights, when you downgrade them, when you go after their unions in the name of some ideological mission you are on. It is tragic, and I am sorry. I apologize for them and their behavior to the teachers of Ohio and teachers around the country. It is too important a profession to do that. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I rise and will be joined in a few moments by Senator Harkin, who is the chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee; Senator Murray, the chair of the Veterans' Committee; and Senator Blumenthal, a new Member of the Senate from Connecticut. Each of them, especially Senator Harkin, has devoted their careers to worker rights, worker safety, decent benefits, pensions--in short, creating the middle class--and their efforts have been legion, all three of them, in doing that. I rise today to commemorate Workers Memorial Day. Last Thursday, April 28, our Nation observed Workers Memorial Day. It is an occasion for us to pause and remember those Americans who have lost their lives while on the job. I wear on my lapel a pin given to me at a Workers Memorial Day rally in Lorain, OH, a city west of Cleveland on Lake Erie--steel town, people like to call us--and this lapel pin I wear is a picture of a canary in a birdcage. We know that mine workers 100 years ago took a canary down in the mines. If the canary died from lack of oxygen or toxic gas, the mine worker knew he had to get out of the mine. He had to depend on himself. He had no union strong enough nor a government which cared enough to protect him in those days. As we celebrate Workers Memorial Day, we look back at the progress we have made as a country. This year is the 100th anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York. That tragedy claimed the lives of 146 workers--123 women and 23 men--while they labored in sweatshop conditions in this textile plant in New York City. They were mostly young immigrants who came to this country in pursuit of a better life. Instead, they were killed because of the workplace, the incredibly unsafe conditions in that workplace. That tragedy marked a significant turning point in the struggle to advance worker rights and safety in our country. The day after the fire, 15,000 shirtwaist workers walked off the job demanding a 20-percent pay raise and a 52-hour week--a 52-hour week they were demanding. Nearly 20 years later, in 1930, Ohio experienced its deadliest mining explosion in our history, the Millified mine disaster in Athens County. Methane gases were ignited by a short circuit between a trolley wire and rail, killing more than 80 men. Four years later, in 1934, thousands of workers stood up to the Electric Auto-Lite company in Toledo, OH. Workers recognized they were underpaid and undervalued. They went on strike and clashed with members of the Ohio National Guard. The so-called ``Battle of Toledo,'' unfortunately, resulted in over 200 injuries. The strike brought together union brothers and sisters across the city in solidarity, fighting for middle-class rights. Similar strikes in Minneapolis and San Francisco followed the one in Toledo that year, generating a new momentum across our country toward treating U.S. workers with respect and dignity. Ultimately, we know what happened. President Roosevelt's New Deal established critical rights and benefits for working Americans. It is why we have a 40-hour work week, why we have a minimum wage, and why we have collective bargaining rights. Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act, the Wagner Act, in 1935, which guaranteed workers the right to form a union and bargain collectively. The Labor Standards Act passed in 1938, which established a minimum wage, guaranteed overtime pay in certain jobs, established recordkeeping standards, and created child labor protections. We now have OSHA, which was created by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, to ensure safe working conditions. It was signed by a Republican President. In those days, Republicans worked with Democrats to increase worker safety standards and actually help workers join the middle class. When OSHA was established 41 years ago, in 1970, an average of 38 workers died on the job in this country every day. We have cut that by two-thirds, not just because of OSHA but certainly in large part because of OSHA. Deaths in the workplace continue but not with the frequency of 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago, prior to OSHA, but they continue. Last week, another mine accident claimed the life of an Ohioan. Jason Gudat was killed while working at an underground limestone mine in eastern Ohio, in Salem. This past year, I received a letter from Crystal of Adams County, who lost her husband Terry in a construction accident. Terry was the father of five. He was killed at his construction job last year due to a lack of safety lighting during his nighttime shift. Crystal, his widow, explained that ``the circumstances of his death were completely preventable if there had been better safety laws regarding his line of work. There was no lighting where my husband lost his life. . . . You never realize how important these things are until it happens to you.'' In the case of garment workers, it was fire safety. In the case of mine workers, like Jason, it was unsafe conditions that are too often found in mines. In the case of Terry and other construction workers, it was basic safety lighting. We ask our workers to build our roads, make our cars, produce our energy, and to serve as the backbone of our Nation's economic competitiveness. We should do more to protect them while they do so. Last month, I had a roundtable meeting with a group of workers in Columbus, near State House Square, in an Episcopal church. We were talking about worker rights. We had a police officer, a firefighter, a nurse, a teacher, and several other workers there. These are public employees. But they have seen the same assault on their rights as we are seeing all too often in this body--an assault on union rights and nonunion worker rights--far too many times. We must stop these blatant efforts to strip teachers, sanitation workers, police officers, firefighters, and others from collectively bargaining for fair pay and safety equipment. That has been a right in this country for 75 years, since the Wagner Act, the 1938 labor act. It has been a right for workers that has created a middle class, and it brought up the living standards not just for union workers who organize and bargain collectively, but it brought up the living standards for both white-collar and blue-collar workers, management and labor, throughout our society. It has created a much more prosperous society. The New York Times had an article written last week by someone who said that when we fail at war in a battle, we don't turn around and blame the soldiers; we give them better equipment with which to do their job. So why, when our public education system sometimes fails, do we blame teachers? Why don't we give those teachers better tools to do their jobs? Why don't we do the same with firefighters, police officers, nurses, and others, instead of blaming these workers and public employees? In my State, the Governor signed legislation a month or so ago that stripped these public workers of their collective bargaining rights. I think in this society, with this kind of pressure on the middle class, the last thing we should do is strip anybody of their rights that enable them to make a decent living, put food on their table, have a decent pension, and have decent health care--especially in retirement. It makes no sense to me, as we honor workers and Workers Memorial Day, which was commemorated last week, that we would ever move in the wrong direction when it comes to workers' rights and building a more prosperous middle class. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, today I wish to honor John ``Jack'' Gilligan, a model of public service, of decency and intellect, who turned 90-years-old last month and now celebrates the 40th anniversary of his administration as the 62nd Governor of Ohio. Today there is a great debate on the future of country, as there was when Jack served as Governor of Ohio from 1971-1974. Our economic competitiveness was threatened by expanding debt, declining manufacturing, rising gas prices, and waning dominance in technology and innovation. Today, we face those challenges coupled with competition from emerging powers in Asia and productivity increasing but wages stagnating in America. Whether 40 years ago or today, what the middle class looks like in America what we want the future of our country to look like depends on our leaders making smart, tough, and sometimes politically unpopular decisions. That is the role Jack Gilligan played, with poise and skill, and with honesty and candor. When Ohio's public workers needed a voice at that table, he expanded their collective bargaining rights. Understanding that education and infrastructure are keys to our economic competitiveness, he bolstered investments in each, while understanding tax burdens also mean better schools, safer roads, and stronger vital public services like police and fire protection. He also expanded the right to vote by lowering the voting age to 18 years old and expanded programs for mental health services and environmental protection. It was during his time as Governor, when I first met Jack Gilligan. It was 1972, when I ran in my first election, for State Representative for the Ohio House representing my hometown of Mansfield. Jack visited me one day and offered simple advice, ``Be yourself, know who you're fighting for and what you stand for.'' It is advice that I have followed ever since, wisdom that applies to anyone seeking to uphold the sacred public trust. And by listening to Jack, you learn about the great State of Ohio of its geographic and demographic diversity. Jack will say we are a different State every 20 miles. We have the same farmers but who grow different crops. We have small towns, but we also have different rural communities. We have the same immigrants but from different countries; the same union family but from different unions. Jack understands that the diversity of our State not only makes it the heartland of America but also its heartbeat. Born March 22, 1922, in Cincinnati, John Gilligan graduated from St. Xavier High School in 1939 and the University of Notre Dame in 1943. He then enlisted in the U.S. Navy, serving in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the Mediterranean during World War II. He was awarded a Silver Star for his service in Okinawa. Upon returning to his hometown after the war, he completed a master's degree and doctorate course work in English literature at the University of Cincinnati. He then began his teaching career at Xavier University. In 1953, he began his decades long service to the people of Ohio. From 1953 to 1963, Jack served on the Cincinnati City Council during the civil rights era. His progressivism took him to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1964 as the Congressman from Ohio's 1st District, where he helped pass groundbreaking progressive pieces of legislation, like the creation of Medicare and Medicaid. Undaunted by his defeat for reelection--after his district was gerrymandered--and for the Senate in 1968, Jack continued his public service beyond the halls of government. By 1970, he ran for Governor, driving an old, used van he bought from a dry cleaner and sleeping on a cot in the back. When a voter asked if he or she could help, he asked them to fill the van with gas. He won. And he fought each day thereafter to represent the interests of Ohio's middle class. After leaving the Governor's office in 1974, Jack was asked by President Carter to serve as Director of the United States Agency for International Development, USAID, leading efforts to reorganize our Nation's foreign assistance management programs. By the 1980s and 1990s he returned to teaching, returning to teach at his alma maters, the University of Notre Dame, where he helped found the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, and the University of Cincinnati College of Law. But even in academia, Jack remained active in politics and public service. In 1999, at the age of 78, the former Congressman-turned-Governor served on the Board of Education for Cincinnati Public Schools. And throughout his commitment to public service, Jack Gilligan has remained a steadfast family man. He married Katie Dixon, with whom he raised four children before she died in 1996. He since remarried to Susan Freemont, a family practice physician from Cincinnati. As the family patriarch, he has inspired his children Donald, Kathleen, John, and Ellen to pursue the public good. Kathleen now serves as U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, having previously served as Governor of Kansas the only time in our Nation's history that a father and daughter have served as Governors. Secretary Sebelius helped pass the most important health care law since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid, enacted with the help of her father nearly 50 years earlier. To Jack's family, thank you for sharing him with a grateful State and a grateful Nation. 2011 marks the 90th birthday of John ``Jack'' Gilligan's and the 40th anniversary of his leadership as Ohio's Governor. To Jack, I thank you for your service and for your counsel. And thank you for your continued belief that the fight for social and economic justice is always worth it, so long as we remember who we fight for and what we stand for. Happy Birthday, Governor.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I came to the floor for the same reason Senator Coons did. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Delaware in the beginning of his first term in office. He obviously understands the importance of worker rights and the importance of collective bargaining. In my State, collective bargaining passed 30 years ago. Because of that, we no longer see the ``blue flu,'' where a police officer calls in sick. Because there was no ability to organize and bargain collectively, they would call in sick the same day. They had no other way of expressing themselves. We have seen significant labor peace, when we didn't always have labor peace on a lot of these issues prior to the early 1980s in my State, where we now have collective bargaining. My colleagues who have followed the news--I think people are very aware of this in my State--know that Governor Kasich recently signed legislation to take away those bargaining rights. That is why I have come to the floor today, in part, to celebrate We Are One, an organization that represents people of faith, people who belong to trade unions, people who care about economic justice, people who support strong community local services--the police, the firefighters, nurses, teachers--and who have come together to honor Dr. King. As Senator Coons mentioned, Dr. King was assassinated 43 years ago today because he was standing with workers in Memphis, TN--sanitation workers. Some of those workers had been crushed to death on the job by heavy machinery and had no ability to bargain collectively, no ability to fight for themselves. Most of them African American, most had no real rights to job safety, decent wages, or benefits. Dr. King understood that worker rights is a human rights issue, and that is why he stood up. The debate in statehouses across America--Wisconsin, Ohio, and in other places--is about collective bargaining, but it is really about rights, opportunities, and the future of the middle class. The American middle class, as Senator Coons pointed out, didn't happen by chance. Those aspiring to the middle class had to work hard and play by the rules in order to enter it. The middle class was created after people worked together to demand a minimum wage, safe workplaces, pensions, Social Security, and basic fairness. The middle class, in many ways in this country, was a direct outgrowth of the passage in this body some 70-plus years ago of collective bargaining--the right of both private- sector workers, then later public-sector workers, to organize and bargain collectively, Last fall we heard many of the Republican winners of elections in my State, and I think across the country, talk about the loss of jobs--the job loss that began during the Bush administration. When President Obama took office, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. We are now beginning to gain jobs, and have done that the last 12 or 13 months, especially in manufacturing. We know manufacturing jobs create a middle class. But after winning these elections last fall in my State, instead of focusing on jobs, as they did during the election, too many politicians are governing by ideology and seeking to settle old scores. At a time when the middle class is struggling more than at any time in my lifetime, when workers are seeing their productivity going up and up and up but seeing their wages flatten or even seeing their hours cut back, American families are burdened by new attacks on their rights. About a month and a half ago, at a roundtable held in an Episcopal church on the statehouse square in Columbus, I was listening to nurses, teachers, police officers, and other public employees. I had heard from conservative politicians who wanted to cut off collective bargaining rights, to take those rights away, and those people making accusations that these firefighters and police officers and teachers were lazy, overpaid, had too much time off, had pensions that were too big, had health care benefits that were too generous. But as I was hearing all that from critics, I was listening one on one to these public employees. A young teacher, who had been teaching only about 10 years, told me that when she goes to the bargaining table, she doesn't just talk about wages and benefits but that she is negotiating for smaller class sizes as well. A police officer I talked to wasn't just talking about pensions and pay, he was negotiating for a bulletproof vest for him and his men and women colleagues who were also police officers. So these negotiations are not just for more money, more public dollars spent on behalf of these police, firefighters, teachers, and nurses; they are also about helping society, improving society, expanding on the middle class. It is clear those attacking collective bargaining are more interested in taking rights away than creating jobs. It is clear in Ohio. The bill that passed the House of Representatives would give Ohio the most restrictive voter regulation laws in the Nation that they would seek to limit our basic freedoms--restrict worker rights, restrict the right to vote, cut back on women's rights. Perhaps I am missing something, but how does that have anything to do with creating jobs and strengthening our economy? Let me, for a couple of moments, put a human face on all of this. I have a friend who is a firefighter named George, in Willoughby, OH. He wrote me this letter right after the Governor signed this legislation taking away his rights, taking away bargaining rights for a huge number of police officers and firefighters and teachers and health care workers and nurses and others. He said: I joined my proud profession knowing I would never be rich. I truly joined knowing I would be helping people. I joined knowing I would be able to raise a family. I joined knowing I would have a pension in the end. As a 21-year-old kid entering this profession, I weighed heavily on the ``helping people'' and the pure excitement of the job. Now, as a 41-year-old firefighter who has been beaten down both physically and emotionally, I will admit my pension now plays a role, is my driving force to go to work every day. I have always been the firefighter who the bosses look to when a task needs doing. I will soon be a 42-year-old firefighter in my 21st year of service. I am virtually 6.5 years from being able to retire. This job has torn up my knees, requiring surgery to one of them. This job has injured my back on several occasions, twice requiring extensive time off to rehab. I am doing everything possible to avoid surgery. This job has caused memories that will stick with me for the rest of my life, the kind of memories that make you go home and hug your wife and kids and thank God that they are safe. I mention all this because, as you know, we as public servants are being attacked in Ohio. We are being attacked in our profession as well as our retirement. Our fundamental rights and the foundation of our profession are being attacked. Collective bargaining is the only way we have been able to improve safety as well as maintain a quality of life for our families. This system protects both the taxpayer and the public servant from leaders on both sides who choose to rule with an iron fist. I am now one of our beat-up senior firefighters who is rapidly approaching retirement age. Where do threats of pension changes leave me or the many others like me if I am unable to finish my years of service due to injury? Where do those threats of pension changes leave me if my employer decides it is ``fiscally responsible'' to lay off higher-paid beat-up senior firefighters to keep lower-paid younger fighters? I will get back to the letter in a second, but my understanding is, under the legislation that Governor Kasich signed, management, then, would be able to say: This firefighter is more likely to get hurt. He is older and gets paid more, so we will lay off five of them in their forties and keep the younger ones. It is just too bad they are not going to have enough years to retire. That is what taking away collective bargaining rights, that is what busting the union for these firefighters or police officers or teachers or nurses can do. Back to the letter: In Willoughby, due to economic conditions, we have not replaced firefighters who have died or retired. In 1990 we ran 2,100 incidents per year. In 2010 we ran just under 5,000 incidents. In 20 years it went from 2,100 runs to 5,000 runs. I am sure we are not the only city that continues to operate understaffed with higher volumes. I consider myself a moderate when it comes to politics. I have always voted for those who support me as a public servant. That is what true public servants do. That was George, a firefighter in Lake County, OH, in Willoughby, just east of Cleveland. Again, this is not just about collective bargaining. It is what we want our country to be. Dr. King, whom we honor, who was assassinated 43 years ago today--Dr. King delivered the 1965 commencement address at Antioch College, in Yellow Springs, OH, where Coretta Scott attended many years before. On the moral question of confronting poverty, Dr. King said: There is no deficit in human resources. The deficit is in human will. Yes, we all care about budget deficits. We know we need to move toward a balanced budget. We know our first focus needs to be creating jobs. We want to invest smartly and cut wisely, but we also care about the education deficit. We care about the infrastructure deficit. We care about disparities in education and health care based on class and race and gender. We care about the lack of economic mobility for millions of Americans in underserved urban areas and underserved rural Appalachian areas, like much of the Presiding Officer's State which borders an underserved rural area in my State. We care about these deficits in our Nation. But what is greater is our deficit in the lack of will to close them. The question becomes, then, Do we have the will to do what is right? Do we have the will to fight back in Ohio when the Governor and legislature have eliminated collective bargaining, now effective in 90 days? Do we have the will to fight for the middle class? Do we have the will to strengthen our country as we cut the budget to move toward a balanced budget but not cut what matters for a productive, strong middle class, for middle-class Americans, and for all those people in Ohio and West Virginia and around this country who aspire to join the middle class? I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, Senators should expect two rollcall votes at approximately 12 noon in relation to 1099 repeal. We are working to reach an agreement on the small business bill. Senators will be notified when additional votes are scheduled.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.