Floor Statements

Madam President, I thank the majority leader for his support on our upcoming efforts. I am joined on the Senate floor by Senator Casey, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, who has been a leader for workers in this body.

I want to make some brief comments about something very important for workers and businesses and international trade. Then Senator Casey will make a couple of unanimous-consent requests. He will make one that I hope is agreed to. If it is, then he will not need to make a second, and I will not need to make a third.

In December, just before the 111th Congress adjourned, it extended two critical trade programs which Senator Casey and I were on the Senate floor working on. First, we extended the Andean Trade Preferences Act, thanks in part to Senator McCain of Arizona. It provides assistance to Latin American countries and also helps American businesses and workers by granting access to new inputs and products.

Second, critically important to our two States, Pennsylvania and Ohio, and I know to the Presiding Officer's State of Minnesota, we extended trade adjustment assistance. That is the least we can do when this Congress passes wrong-headed trade agreements.

We extended the health coverage tax credit so that together workers who lose their jobs because of bad trade agreements, such as NAFTA and CAFTA, and bad trade positioning such as PNTR for China, can at least get some help for retraining so they can get back to work in comparably paying jobs, we hope, and get some assistance, some tax credits to buy health insurance for them and their families.

As a result, thousands of workers and retirees who depend on TAA and the HCTC made it through the holidays, when we did this in late December, at the last minute--it should not have been that long, but in the last minute--with these critical sources of support.

The Andean Trade Preferences Act has brought benefits for our businesses and workers. It is nice that sunflowers from Colombia will be in florist shops for Valentines Day next week because of this act. But the difficult reality faced by too many workers reliant on TAA, reliant on the health care tax credit, reminds us of the effects of trade and globalization, the downside of trade and globalization.

It reminds us that our actions bring consequences. We hear Presidents and Congresses trumped the advantages of free trade. Yet they forget about fair trade, what happens to too many workers. Good for investors, good for some companies, good for some countries, not always good for our workers--they forget about that.

By this weekend, if we fail to act, crucial improvements to TAA and the health care tax credit will expire. Workers again will be hurt not just by loss of jobs but loss of these benefits. It will expire at the expense of workers who played by the rules, who lost their jobs, most of their pensions, and their health care--or all three.

Just last month I visited the Mahoning Valley on the Pennsylvania border in Northeast Ohio--the Mahoning Valley One Stop to visit with workers who are using TAA to develop new skills and training to find new secure jobs. One industrial manufacture worker, I believe, in her forties has a child, a daughter, I believe, in her late teens. She and her daughter both were in the same school studying to be health care workers, both becoming professionals, both getting their lives and their futures in order--the mother able to do it because of trade adjustment assistance.

I was there with a simple message: We cannot keep passing trade agreements that undermine Ohio workers and then turn our backs on those workers when their jobs are offshored.

The TAA and HCTC enhancements are not expensive; they are not complicated. They are modest improvements that Congress passed to programs that help tens of thousands of Americans either get back to work or regain some measure of the financial security that had been stripped unceremoniously from them.

Last week, 12 Senators and I, including the majority leader, sent House leadership a request for a long-term extension of trade adjustment assistance, the health care tax credit, and the Andean Trade Preferences Act. TAA is a critical part of our Nation's competitiveness strategy.

In the last 2 years, more than 155,000 additional trade-affected workers across the country who might not have been certified under the former TAA program became eligible for TAA benefits because a year and a half, almost 2 years ago, in the Recovery Act, we added expanded trade adjustment to help those workers who had lost their jobs because of trade.

These Americans are rubber workers from Johnson Rubber Company in Wood County. They are furniture makers from Masco in Jackson County or aluminum castings workers from Mansfield Brass and Aluminum in my home county of Richland. In addition, workers in the service industry are eligible for TAA because of these changes. Those workers include engineers at Belcan Engineering in Cincinnati and computer programers at Electronic Data Systems in Fairborn, a suburb of Dayton. It includes researchers at the Transportation Research Center in Moraine.

In total, 360,000-plus workers nationwide have been certified eligible for TAA since 2009. These workers use TAA to acquire new skills to return to work as quickly as possible. This is not theory; this is not some game. This is workers who have lost their jobs because of decisions in this body and in the White House that cost people those jobs. And it is helping those workers so they can get back on their feet.

It is not a game; it is not a happy time. It is the least we can do for those workers. Health coverage tax credit programs also help those same trade-affected workers and retirees who lose their benefits. I could go on about this. I will stop.

I hope Republicans do not object. The combination of TAA and HCTC, trade adjustment and health care tax credit, is a winner for business. The combination is a winner for workers; it is a

winner for our economy. It will boost the economy. It is too important for the country. For decades there has been bipartisan support for the TAA program.

In 1962, President Kennedy, when this was conceived, said: Those injured by foreign competition should not be required to bear the brunt of it.

When there are no replacements for good-paying, secure jobs, TAA and HCTC are there. They help workers acquire new skills. They help businesses compete. They are keys to our Nation's economic recovery. They are keys to our competitiveness. They are, simply put, the right thing to do.

I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania, I believe, for a unanimous consent request.

Madam President, will the Senator from Wyoming yield for a question?

Is he aware that 155,000 new workers have been certified, that under the new TAA program since May 2009, 155,000 Americans have been assisted under TAA?

Madam President, if the Senator would be willing to give us more specifics, it is very important to those 155,000 workers. I know a lot of them live in Pennsylvania. I don't know how many of them live in Wyoming. I could find that out. I understand his criticism of the Recovery Act, but that is a debate for another time. I understand Senator Coburn's disagreement and perhaps his too with worker training programs. I wish to see a better consolidation. This President is actually beginning to do that. President Bush, I don't believe, ever attempted that.

More precisely, strip away all the other discussions of the Recovery Act. Precisely what did we do that you object to when we expanded the TAA language in the Recovery Act? We have the Recovery Act in place. We have the TAA in place. We expanded TAA so that more workers could be covered, those workers who lost their jobs from trade agreements--not from trade agreements, lost their jobs from trade losses from trade, not just in countries we had free trade agreements with but other countries. We expanded it there. We also expanded it to service workers. Since you are speaking for Mr. Coburn and others, what precisely was the expansion in TAA that you objected to? This is not a debate on all the worker training programs. This is a debate on making them more efficient. We should have that debate. We should make it more efficient. This is not a debate on the Recovery Act, even though any fair-minded economist will say it is not a well-known failure. It actually worked. But that is another debate.

But precisely the expansion of TAA to cover service workers and to cover those workers who lost jobs to countries with whom we did not have an FTA, what is your objection to those, the precise specific expansion of TAA that Senator Casey's unanimous consent is trying to expand, to continue?

Madam President, I am not surprised by this, but I am very disappointed. These are American workers who have lost their jobs. This body is responsible in part with a bunch of multinational corporations that have moved jobs out of this country, in some cases to get cheaper labor, to get trade advantages, to take advantage of tax breaks, to evade environmental laws, to evade worker safety and labor laws. They have moved out of this country with assistance from this Chamber. I don't know if it is Senator Barrasso or Coburn or who, but we are turning our backs on those workers who have lost jobs not through their own doing. I am very disappointed.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 359, which was received from the House and is at the desk; that a Brown substitute amendment providing an 18-month extension for the health insurance cost tax credit be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I am again disappointed. This is a tax credit. The Senator from Wyoming knows this, as many colleagues do. This brings back the issue of health care generally. A bunch of us in this body who get our health insurance from taxpayers are not willing to assist people who have lost their jobs. The health care tax credit is available, just as COBRA is available. But tell me for most American workers that COBRA is not a cruel hoax. COBRA is what you get if you lose your job. You can keep your insurance. You have to pay the employer side and your own side. You are working at a job making $40,000 a year. You pay your insurance, and your employer pays part of your insurance also. If you lose your job, you keep paying your own insurance, but you have to pay the employer's part too. What kind of workers can get laid off and have the money to pay both? Is it still available? Sure it is. Isn't that a wonderful thing? Aren't we great in this body?

The fact is, it is not available. For Senators who want to repeal health care, for Senators who want to strip any assistance, because in the end it does strip assistance that the health care tax credit gives, it is basically turning our backs and saying to these workers: Sorry about that. Sorry about NAFTA. Sorry about PNTR. I know you lost your job because of the trade agreements. Sorry about losing your health insurance. Sorry about not having any job training money. And if your house is foreclosed on, that is just too damn bad too.

I don't get this. I don't understand why people in this body can't at least help those citizens who don't dress like this every day, who don't make $170,000 a year, who don't have good health insurance provided by taxpayers. Why are we turning our backs on them?

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I reserve the right to object.

I cannot walk out of here--and I think Senator Casey feels the same-- saying yes to workers governed by the Andean trade preferences--in other words, yes, we are going to help workers in Colombia and Peru and Ecuador and Bolivia--we are going to say yes to workers there--but the Senator from Wyoming wants us to walk out and

have said no to workers in Harrisburg and Columbus and Toledo and Erie and Sharon and Youngstown, so, Madam President, I object.

Madam President, I rise in support of the Nelson amendment. The amendment would strike section 605, as Senator Hutchison said, from the FAA bill. Section 605 would establish an advisory committee on the future of aeronautics to, among other things, consider transferring responsibility for civil aeronautics research and development from NASA to other existing departments. The sole purpose is to take away aeronautics from NASA. That is unacceptable. It belies the very purpose of NASA in our space and aeronautics mission. NASA stands for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. His amendment ensures that NASA stays that way. This is a question of maintaining our space, aeronautics, and economic competitiveness.

Remember, one of our Nation's top manufacturing exports--and we don't export nearly enough manufactured goods--is aerospace, which includes civilian aircraft components. Ohio is the center for the aerospace industry. We make billions of dollars in components both for Boeing and Airbus and many other manufacturers. Section 605 would jeopardize America's dominance in aerospace and would shift the programs that have strengthened our Nation's global leadership away from the experience and expertise at NASA. A consortium of nonprofits and colleges and private corporations and other government agencies can be effective and have been effective to promote public-private partnerships and economic development. But none of these entities, either by themselves or even working together, will ever be able to conduct aerospace and aeronautics research and development better than NASA. Its fundamental aeronautics research capability is already fully integrated. It ensures the future success of NASA space missions.

Furthermore, section 605 is in direct contradiction to the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, which reaffirmed that aeronautics research remains vital to NASA's mission and deserves continued support. Simply put, section 605 jeopardizes not only the future of NASA but America's dominance in the global aerospace marketplace.

NASA centers across the country are unique in their ability to leverage space and aviation systems through their experienced technical researchers. These NASA centers in Cleveland and nine other places around the country are stewards and operators of the Nation's civil aeronautics R&D test infrastructure.

I applaud Senator Nelson of Florida for offering this amendment and his leadership on the Science and Space Committee.

I ask my colleagues to join Senator Hutchison and me in supporting the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Blunt's maiden speech, too. I had the honor of listening to it. Of course, I disagree with his comments.

I have heard all this before. I have heard Republicans say this is a bad law, that we have to deal with all these issues. I hear that over and over. But I also notice, by even a cursory observation or a look back at our Nation's recent history, that when President Bush was in office, when our Republicans controlled the House of Representatives and they controlled the Senate, the only thing they did on anything relating to health care or pensions was try to privatize Social Security. They didn't really do anything to try to provide health insurance for people who did not have it. They passed no real consumer protections in terms of eliminating preexisting conditions. They did nothing for a 23-year-old to stay on their parents' health insurance plan. They were woefully inadequate in their efforts to assist small businesses in providing health insurance for their employees.

So, Mr. President, it really is the same kind of empty rhetoric we have heard from Republicans for years. They do not like doing it this way, they want to repeal and fix it, but they don't really want to fix it because they haven't really offered anything to fix it, particularly when they had the ability to pass something through both Houses and get it signed by the President. They really don't ever stand up to the insurance interests. The Republican Party receives huge contributions from the insurance industry. The Republican Party receives huge contributions from the pharmaceutical industry and the medical device industry. So they really have shown little interest in providing for the kind of people whose letters I am about to share.

We hear Republicans say: Well, we will provide insurance by selling across State lines and enacting malpractice reform. Well, even the most optimistic estimates reveal that might insure 2 or 3 million more people and cut costs in health care by a minuscule--I don't even know if it is 1 percent but nothing substantive that really matters in people's lives or to any degree, not to mention that it takes away a person's ability to get redress when they have been injured by a negligent hospital or provider.

So this is mostly empty rhetoric from Republicans in this whole debate. But I want to bring it back and put a human face on it. The law of the land today--much of what we passed a year ago--will affect people's lives.

I am particularly troubled when I hear people stand on the House and Senate floor--or people in attorneys general offices in Columbus and around my State or around the country--and say they are in favor of bringing a suit against this health care bill. When I think about that, I think about conservative politicians who have been the beneficiaries, they and their families have been the beneficiaries of taxpayer- financed health insurance for their whole careers, but now they want to take benefits away from voters and citizens and families in my State. They want to take benefits from seniors--some of their Medicare benefits. They want to take benefits away from families. And it just strikes me as rank hypocrisy.

But I can illustrate this better by reading these letters than I can just by talking.

Megan, from Summit County, is a college student. Megan is from the Akron area, and she says:

Being a 22-year-old college student, it can be very

demanding trying to keep a successful schedule going to

maintain health care under my parents. As for my brother, who

does not attend college, health care is nearly impossible

because of costs. This law will allow both of us to remain

under our parents for a little while longer while we get our

feet planted.

Megan knows even when she graduates how difficult it will be to find a good job with good-quality health insurance, so she knows she has the option, because of this law, to stay on her parents' health insurance until her 27th birthday. When Republicans talk about repealing this health insurance law, what are they going to tell Megan or promise Megan in return? I assume nothing.

Rose, from Cuyahoga County in the Cleveland area, northeast Ohio, is a small business owner. She says:

As a small business owner, I do not want the new health

care bill to be repealed. We are excited at the small

business tax credit for health care and also the new plans

being rolled out that will give us more choices. This bill

will help us to continue to offer health care to our

employees.

Rose, if she has fewer than 50 employees, is not required to buy them health insurance, but she will have available to them a 35-percent tax credit, beginning last fall, which she can use to insure her employees, and most small employers want to do that. Most employers, period, want to do that. Also, by 2014, Rose will be able to benefit in her small business with a 50-percent tax credit.

Richard, from Huron County, west and south of where I live in the Norwalk area, writes:

I've been reading where Mitch McConnell wants to force a

vote in the Senate on the repeal of the health care law. If

he does this, when you are allotted the time to speak, will

you ask all the Republicans if they will give up their

Federal health care since they are so opposed to this bill?

Ask them if they are willing to keep the insurance provided

by the government, but yet at the same time take away the

help for seniors toward their prescriptions or the preventive

checkups. Or ask them to tell all the families that their

sons

and daughters aren't covered under their family's policies.

Richard understands there are a bunch of people in this town and a bunch of conservative politicians who do not believe in government but who are enjoying their taxpayer-financed insurance. Yet they are willing to take Medicare benefits away from seniors, and they are willing to take benefits away from families.

Tawnya, from Warren County, southwest Ohio near Cincinnati, writes:

Please fight the repeal of the Health Care law. Please

don't let them take away pap smears and mammograms from being

part of preventive health. People with pre-existing medical

conditions need insurance, too. There is a lot of good in

this bill that will be erased if it is repealed. Please fight

so all Americans can have basic care.

Craig, from Cuyahoga County, has children who are college-aged, and he writes:

A number of years ago, my 23-year-old daughter was in a bad

car accident. She had no health insurance because her

employer did not offer it. Since she had no good access to

good health care, she received substandard care and she

continues to suffer. Contrast this to the present. My 21-

year-old son is taking a year off to earn money to return to

school. We cannot afford his tuition and living expenses as

he pursues a double major in physics and economics. In the

past, he would be uncovered by insurance unless he could

afford his own. In case of an accident, his prognosis is much

better than his sister's. Now, he is covered under my

insurance until he either gets a job or turns 26. Thank

goodness. My point with all this is to beg you to keep the

health care bill intact and fight for it.

This is the last letter I will read. This is from Sue of Franklin County, the center of the State, the capital of Columbus, where the Presiding Officer lived for a little while. Sue writes:

Please do not let the Republicans take away my daughter's

health insurance. My husband and I are retired civil servants

on a fixed income. I was overjoyed when my health insurance

company informed me that my 21-year-old daughter could remain

on my policy until she is 26. Currently, she is a senior at

the Ohio State University and under the old regime, would

have been dropped from my policy in April 2011, when she

turns 22. This may not seem like a big deal to you, but my

daughter has a preexisting condition that requires her to

take three prescriptions a day, not to mention doctor

appointments and blood work. I paid for private insurance for

my older daughter for 3 years until her husband's employer

covered her. By the end of the 3 years, I was paying almost

$200 a month for my daughter's policy and she was a healthy

25-year-old without preexisting conditions.

We know the kinds of hardships the repeal of this health care bill will inflict on all kinds of Americans--the college student, the recent graduate, the child with a preexisting condition, the senior who wants to be able to have access to mammograms and a checkup and an osteoporosis screening. We know the small businessperson really needs this tax credit so she can cover her 5 to 10 employees, not because the law tells her to but because she wants to. All these reasons just underscore to me how outrageous it is that a bunch of people dressed like this--who get elected to offices and who enjoy government insurance, so they and their families have benefited from taxpayer- funded insurance--are willing to continue to take their insurance, continue to enjoy those benefits, but are willing to take them away from so many seniors, so many families, so many small businesspeople, so many people who are working hard and playing by the rules and trying to achieve the American dream, but in many cases this just stops them cold in their tracks.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the heroic life of Suzanne Waughtel-Hopper, a deputy sheriff of Clark County, OH, and a beloved mother, wife, daughter, sister, and friend who was killed in the line of duty on the morning of January 1, 2011.

On that fateful day, Deputy Hopper, who went 6 years without ever missing a work day, volunteered to work overtime where she was scheduled to start her shift at 3 a.m. But by 2:34 a.m. she had already started her patrol, and by 2:58 a.m. she had already made an arrest by taking a drunk driver off the street. Throughout the morning, she fielded calls of theft and criminal activity, and by 11:30 a.m. she answered her last call, a report of a dispute at a local campground. While taking forensic evidence photographs, she was shot and killed and German Township officer Jeremy Blum was injured. As Deputy Hopper did each day of her career, she answered her call to duty, the call to uphold the sacred oath she took to protect her community.

In the days since her tragic loss, family and friends have recounted her commitment to the core values of the Clark County Sheriff's Office--integrity, duty, courage, and honor. During the celebration of her life on January 7, 2011, at First Christian Church in Springfield, OH, thousands of people from Clark County and across the State and the Nation remembered her acts of courage on the job, her kindness and empathy to the community, and her love and affection for her family. Flag waving mourners gave thanks and prayers to a public servant who kept their streets and neighborhoods safe for the last 12 years.

School children will remember her as a role model and DARE instructor. Special Olympians will remember her encouragement and support, while several charities will remember her generosity and selflessness. Families who she helped in the line of duty will remember the clothing and food she provided them while she was off duty.

From Young's Dairy to Diane's in North Hampton to the streets of Clark County, her friends from old remember a young girl who grew up into the police officer she always wanted to be. And her fellow heroes in the Clark County Sheriff's office will remember her camaraderie and friendship, forged through her many different assignments and numerous divisions where she served with distinction and honor.

I express my deepest sympathies to Deputy Sheriff Hopper's parents Charles and Bonnie Bauer; her husband Matthew Hopper; her daughter and son Emily Bauer and Charlie Waughtel; her stepchildren Cole and Madeleine Hopper; her sisters and brothers-in-law Annette and Robert Bauer-English, and Marie and Eric Lundgren; her parents-in-law Victoria Hopper and Joseph Kleehammer; and numerous other loved ones.

A grateful State will forever remember Deputy Sheriff Suzanne Waughtel-Hopper, a trusted and true public servant.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor pretty regularly to read letters from Ohioans, from people in my State, about things in their lives that are important to them. I think in this institution we--all of us, myself included--too often forget the pain of so many people at home who have lost jobs, who have lost hopes, who have lost health care.

I think often about--as I know the Senator from Oregon does--how difficult it would be for a parent to explain to their son or daughter: I lost my job and we lost our health insurance and now we may have to move.

Nobody has worked harder in the Senate than the Presiding Officer from Oregon on fixing HAMP and reforming some of the programs that can help people stay in their homes. I appreciate the work the Presiding Officer does.

My letters today are from people all over Ohio about health insurance. It was a long fight to be able to take on the insurance companies and basically say to the insurance companies: You are not going to run this health care system the way you have, excluding people with preexisting conditions, denying claims after they have turned in their insurance after they have been sick, dealing with all the problems people have.

The business model for health insurance in this country too often has been the insurance companies hire a bunch of bureaucrats to keep people from buying insurance--the preexisting condition exclusion--and then hire a bunch of people on the other end, when someone gets sick and turns in their insurance claims, to try to deny them their claims. I understand insurance companies do that. I do not even blame insurance companies because they are all competing with one another. They may have to do that. But the fact is, it does not work for our health care system.

That is what we fixed last year, and that is what Ohioans understand. I guess I--I do not want to say ``resent,'' but in some ways I do resent when I see conservative Washington politicians, who, for 20 or 25 years, have had taxpayer-financed health insurance for them and their families, and now they want to vote--in the House of Representatives, and some do here--to take away benefits for senior citizens or take away benefits for small businesses or young people who have a preexisting condition or others.

I will not take too long, but I wish to read three or four stories or maybe a handful more than that.

Laura--I will only mention first names. These are letters from people in Ohio who have written me. Laura, from Dayton, in Montgomery County in southwest Ohio, writes:

My youngest nephew has juvenile diabetes and he just

started college in-state. Due to the new health care law, he

will be able to stay on my older sister's health care

insurance plan when he graduates from college.

My third oldest nephew can now go back on my second oldest

sister's insurance plan.

It appears [that some in Congress care] more about money

than the American people. Please fight for me so I won't have

to worry about losing my health insurance plan if I get

seriously ill in the future.

This story comes from Christine in Medina County, up close to where I live. It is a county south of Cleveland. She writes:

My name is Christine and I want to tell you the story of

Carol . . . my mom. . . .

Nine years ago, my father was downsized. His position of

over 40 years was eliminated and so was my parents' health

coverage. My father was only a few months shy of retirement

so Medicare was available to him and my mom was on COBRA. My

mom's employer of over 20 years had just recently shut its

doors and while she found work through a temp agency, it was

only part-time and she didn't qualify for benefits.

A few months later my mom was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin's

Lymphoma and Emphysema.

Fortunately, her life was not in immediate danger and their

lives were coasting along until her COBRA ran out.

COBRA is a plan you pay a lot of money for. Actually, you pay the employer's and the employee's side--yours and the employer's--to get coverage for up to 18 months after you lose your job and your insurance.

Christine writes:

. . . have you ever tried to find healthcare coverage for

someone with a history of cancer and emphysema? I can, so

from personal experience, it's infuriating, but I was able to

find it. It would . . . cost her $1,400 per month--

Mr. President, $1,400 per month--

with a $4,000 deductible per year.

That means she would pay insurance--$1,400 a month. She would not be able to collect on any of her bills until she had already paid an additional $4,000 out of her pocket.

This was more than my parents were bringing home each month

so needless to say whatever savings and retirement they had

was used up quickly. What other option did [they] have?

During this time, my mom's health deteriorated. She

required chemo and several hospital stays due to her lung

collapsing. . . . I remember sitting with her in the hospital

and listening to how worried she was about how she was going

to pay [her] bill.

As if these kinds of illnesses are not bad enough in the stress it causes to a family, the anxiety it causes to a family, on top of that, they just wonder: What do we do about insurance? We know people get sicker and recover more slowly when they have that kind of anxiety about paying the bills.

My parents are good people. My dad is a veteran. They

worked their entire lives and sacrificed to give me and my

older sisters a better life than they had. They were

fortunate to have 3 tireless advocates always looking out for

them. Not everyone has that.

She then goes on:

State and Federal programs are what helped my parents.

Without them, I honestly don't know where they'd be today.

My hope is that you'll remember my mom and everyone like

her. Their lives are depending on it.

She says: State and Federal programs are what helped my mother.

This whole attitude of let's repeal the health care bill and then get the government out of it, and letting individuals take care of themselves is the American way--no, it is not. The American way is Medicare, is Medicaid, is Social Security, is private enterprise, is individualism, is helping one another, is a spirit of community in our communities. It is all that, and it is not get government out of our lives. They are against Social Security and they are against Medicare. Those are not the American values I was raised with and most people I know were raised with.

Michael from Twinsburg, north of Akron, in northeast Ohio, writes:

. . . my 22 year old son--a college student--was kicked off

my insurance plan because of his age last year. It now costs

$460 a month to insure him.

In January, he will be added back to my policy and it will

cost nothing. There is no additional charge to add my son.

This is due to the health insurance legislation.

Please [talk about] these good things. Most people do not

know this and other good things.

Keep in mind, as I read these, this kind of benefit that goes to Michael's son. If the people in this body and in the other body--the people in the House of Representatives who actually voted to repeal the health care bill--if they have their way--and these are mostly people who they themselves are getting taxpayer-financed health insurance-- they want to deny to Michael and his son, they want to deny those kinds of benefits we have voted for, while they, at the same time, are getting taxpayer-financed health insurance. I guess one word would be hypocritical, another would be callous, another would be cold. I do not understand that way of thinking from some of my colleagues.

Steve from Groveport, in Franklin County, Columbus, the center of the State, writes:

I believe the new health care law is one of the greatest

things ever done for the middle class. . . .

I am so tired of hearing that [many in] this country [are]

against it. Every poll I've seen shows it's split . . . down

the middle. The other side . . . has got to be heard!

Steve wrote this a couple weeks ago. I think what we have seen has changed, as people learn more about these benefits. For instance, come January 1, every senior in America can go to the doctor and get, without copays and deductibles, a physical or can get a mammography test or can get screened for osteoporosis or can get colorectal screening.

Seniors also, in the so-called doughnut hole, where they continue to pay a premium but do not get a benefit--under the Bush-constructed health care bill, there is this huge hole that costs people a lot of money--because of the health care bill, because it is law, because the Senator from Oregon and I and others voted for it and the President signed it, those seniors now will see their drug costs during that period cut entirely in half, not taxpayer-subsidized cut in half but the drug companies giving up half of what they were paid.

This is from Donald in Hardin County, northwest of Columbus:

I know firsthand that the lack of necessary medical and

dental services for children and students of all ages has

created a serious impediment to the learning process.

Families with access to a regular source of medical care are

more likely to keep the entire family healthy and create a

better learning environment within the home.

The health care reforms you helped pass are vital to the

nation's economic recovery and a crucial ingredient for great

public schools. . . . Moreover, passage of this reform was a

moral imperative. . . .

Donald, in addition to what he writes about young people--there is an effort in the Ohio legislature where I believe 30 Republican legislators have legislation to cancel or eliminate universal all-day kindergarten--as if cutting back on children of that age, when children's brains are developing, and they are growing and maturing, especially at those crucial ages of 3, 4, 5, 6 years old--to pull the rug out from under them makes absolutely no sense.

The last letter I will read is from Rachael, who lives in Cincinnati, in southwest Ohio:

I simply wanted to thank you for the Pre-Existing Condition

Insurance Plan. It is . . . very important . . . to me.

Your support for health care reform is greatly appreciated.

Health insurance for my pre-existing condition will become

one less thing I need to worry about. Thank you, thank you,

thank you!

I can now concentrate solely on finding a job to replace

the one I lost in January. . . .

Again, I hear people say--I have heard this for years. President Bush said it a few times, others have said it: Everybody in this country gets health care. If something is wrong, you go to the hospital, you go to the emergency room.

Well, the emergency room does not take care of you if you have chronic asthma, the emergency room does not take care of you if you have cancer. The emergency room will take care of you if you go in with a heart attack, but the emergency room does not take care of you if you need preventive care to keep you out of the hospital, to make you less likely to have that heart attack.

I read these letters about health insurance. I don't want to debate health insurance legislation anymore. I don't think we need to talk about this. We have passed the law. We have made things better. We have given people who have insurance better insurance now because of these consumer protections. People without insurance now will get assistance. People who have insurance and were about to get thrown off can keep it now.

We need to focus on the real problems in this country that we haven't addressed well enough, one of which is job creation. I am hopeful my colleagues will back off this whole idea of

let's keep debating health insurance and let's keep relitigating this and let's keep rediscussing it and let's try to repeal it. Instead, we can fix some things, as the President said last night, make some minor changes in it. But let's go back to what we need to do: create jobs in this country and help manufacturing.

My State is the third largest manufacturing State in the country. We need to do a lot to make sure that as we innovate, as we do the best innovation in the world and do the best research and development, that those jobs stay in the United States and don't get outsourced. That is our mission, to make sure these jobs are created here.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate has voted to confirm Judge Kathleen McDonald O'Malley to the U.S. court of appeals for the Federal circuit.

The Nation's gain is Ohio's loss. But it is also a proud day for us.

As a child Kate was blessed with wisdom beyond her years. At the age of 12 she was asked what she wanted to be when she grew up. She replied that she wanted to become a Federal judge.

And she excelled in school--high school, college, and law school. She graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Kenyon College in 1979 and first in her class at Case Western Reserve Law School in 1982.

After law school she clerked for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for the distinguished Judge Nathaniel R. Jones, who is one of her major influences and who considers Kate to be like family.

After her clerkship with Judge Jones, Judge O'Malley spent several years in private practice, where she gained invaluable experience representing numerous large corporations in addition to medium-sized and small businesses.

She became an expert in complex corporate litigation, patent and intellectual property cases--experience that will serve her well as a Circuit Judge in the Federal circuit.

She translated her private sector experience into a distinguished career in public service as chief counsel and chief of staff for then- Ohio attorney general Lee Fisher.

Recognizing her talents, Ohio Senators Howard Metzenbaum and John Glenn recommended her to President Clinton for a place on the Federal bench.

On September 20, 1994, President Clinton nominated her to serve on the Federal bench as a U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Ohio.

When she began her service in the Northern District of Ohio, Judge

O'Malley was among the youngest judges serving on the Federal bench.

Since then, she has served the Northern District of Ohio with distinction.

In addition to having a great legal mind, she is an innovator. She has spearheaded national efforts to integrate cutting edge technologies into courtrooms--ensuring that the administration of justice is equal, fair, and open for all who seek it.

Judge O'Malley will make an outstanding judge on the U.S. court of appeals for the Federal circuit, and I congratulate her on her confirmation.

Mr. President, I thank the Republican leader for his willingness to let us move on this UC.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6517, which was received from the House and is at the desk.

Mr. President, in light of the generosity of the Republican leader and the assistant majority leader, 30 seconds.

This agreement among Senator Casey, Senator Kyl, Senator McCain, and me will make a difference in restoring TAA, trade adjustment, and the health care tax credit, in addition to the Andean trade references and some other things that will make a difference.

It will make a difference. It will mean that 50,000 people don't lose their health insurance the first of the year. I am appreciative of all who have been part of this.

I will yield to Senator Casey for a moment. I thank the leaders for their generosity.

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

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I appreciate the words from the senior Senator from Colorado. His comments about the delays in the judicial process here, the selection of Federal judges, the nomination and confirmation, are identical to the situation for so many of the rest of us. Very qualified people are put forward. At times, the White House, perhaps, didn't move as fast as we would like. But the delays on these judges is pretty outrageous.

Nomination of Benita Pearson

Judge Pearson, who sits as a U.S. magistrate in the Northern District Court in Ohio, didn't have the same disruption in her life as soon-to- be, I hope, Justice Martinez had, having a law practice to put aside and having to wrap it up and figure out all that, but she has waited since February when Senator Leahy and his Judiciary Committee voted her out, had a wait of 9 months, almost 10 months, until we are about ready to confirm.

I speak perhaps in criticism of the other party but, more importantly, how do we fix this so people are not dissuaded, discouraged from wanting to fill these very important jobs?

When I interview potential judicial candidates, I always ask them: Are you willing to put your life on hold for at least a year before you can actually be confirmed and sworn in, if it gets to that?

All are surprised, some are shocked, and some walk away and say: Find somebody else. That is going to start happening. So I thank the Senator from Colorado and his comments.

I rise in support of another very strong candidate for a Federal judgeship, the nomination of Magistrate Judge Benita Pearson to become a judge in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Ohio.

Magistrate Pearson will make an excellent addition to the bench. That is not just my opinion. She has tremendous support from the judges with whom she serves today and whose ranks she will soon join. She knows them from her work, obviously, as a

magistrate. Judge James Carr, the chief U.S. district judge at the time of her nomination, lauded Judge Pearson as ``a splendid choice . . . eminently well-qualified by intelligence, experience . . . and judicial temperament.'' Judge Carr's successor, Solomon Oliver, who now is the chief U.S. district judge, is just as supportive of her nomination.

Support for that nomination extends throughout the State. The other day when I gave a few remarks in the wake of Senator Voinovich's farewell address, I neglected to mention how much I appreciated Senator Voinovich's cooperation in the process of selecting candidates for nomination to the Federal bench.

Senator Voinovich and I did something, and I do not know if any other Senator in this body does this, any other pair of Senators--I do know nobody in Ohio has done this--I asked Senator Voinovich, as the Senator from the President's party--and, generally, by tradition, the Senator who suggests nominees to the President--I asked Senator Voinovich to be part of the selection system with me. We chose 17 people. We chose 17 people from northern Ohio to interview Southern District of Ohio potential judges, and 17 people in southern Ohio--central and southern Ohio--to interview prospective judges for the Northern District.

These panels, one of them was a Republican majority, the other was a democratic majority, I believe, by one vote. These panels met, took this job very seriously. Each of the 17 people was given the name of a candidate, one of the people who was applying to interview, references and all that. Each candidate got an hour in front of the 17-member committee, this Commission we appointed, and were subjected, after filling out a very lengthy questionnaire designed, again, bipartisanly by my predecessor, Republican Senator DeWine, in large part, to, after filling out this questionnaire, testifying, spending an hour in front of this panel of 17 very distinguished judges, some who are lawyers, some, I believe, former judges, all people who were very interested in the Federal judiciary.

Anybody who came out of that had to have a strong supermajority recommendation from the 17. I then interviewed the top three, made the selection, cleared it with Senator Voinovich, and brought the name forward.

That produced Judge Timothy Black, who has been confirmed, sits in the Southern District. It also produced Judge Benita Pearson. A similar selection committee, not identical but a similar selection committee, enabled me, helped me come to the conclusion to reappoint a Bush appointee to the U.S. marshal's job in Cleveland, Pete Elliott, to appoint the first--to send to the President, nominate, and confirm the first female U.S. marshal in the Southern District of Ohio, Cathy Jones, and then the first African-American U.S. attorney in Columbus, and a very qualified U.S. attorney in Cleveland.

So that is the process we have in Ohio to make sure we get the best qualified people. As I said, they put in a tremendous amount of time and energy, and I wish to thank those 17 members of each of those Commissions, the 34 people who served again from both parties, prominent jurists and lawyers and community activists, to come up with Judge Pearson and others.

Judge Pearson currently resides in Akron but was born in Cleveland. I got a chance to meet her mother and many of her family and friends almost 1 year ago when she testified before the Judiciary Committee. They were understandably proud of her, her achievements, and the honor of her nomination, certainly, but I got the sense they were most proud of her as a daughter, as a sister, as a family member. Nobody knows us better than our family.

Judge Pearson earned her J.D. from Cleveland State University, her bachelor's degree from Georgetown. Before law school, she spent several years as a certified public accountant. I asked her how being a CPA would help her in the judiciary as a judge. She said you can tell stories with numbers. She smiled when she said it. She, clearly, had kind of thought through what this means to be a Federal judge and what qualifications she brings. Throughout her career, Judge Pearson has litigated and presided over a range of criminal and civil matters, including housing, public corruption cases. In addition to her work as a magistrate judge since 2008, her legal experience includes serving as an adjunct professor at Cleveland State's law school, 8 years as an assistant U.S. attorney in Cleveland, the Northern District, and several years in private practice.

If confirmed, Judge Pearson will become the first African-American woman to serve as a Federal judge in Ohio. She will also be the only U.S. district judge in the Youngstown courthouse, which, because of delays here, for no apparent reason, has lacked a judge since this past summer.

Last year, at the Akron Bar Association's annual Bench-Bar luncheon, she urged attorneys to improve in two ways: to be better prepared to litigate their cases and to be more civil to one another. Good advice to this body and for all of us, I suppose, in our daily lives.

Judge Pearson's community service includes more than a decade of ongoing work as a board member of Eliza Bryant Village. Eliza Bryant Village is a multifacility campus, providing services for impoverished elderly citizens. It was founded and named after the daughter of a freed slave.

The facility began simply as a nursing facility built to serve Eliza's mother and other African Americans who had been turned away from nursing homes simply because of their race.

Judge Pearson's background as a prosecutor, as a private attorney, as a CPA, and as a Federal magistrate make her uniquely qualified to serve as U.S. district judge. Members of the law enforcement and legal community throughout northern Ohio have attested to Judge Pearson's ability and impartiality. As a magistrate and prosecutor, she, of course, as I said, is supported by our State's senior Senator, Republican George Voinovich. First assistant U.S. attorney, David Sierlega, for example, called Judge Pearson ``an extremely hardworking bright lawyer'' with an exemplary track record in handling public corruption cases.

When asked to describe the ``most significant legal activities'' she has been engaged in, Judge Pearson replied: ``My most significant legal activity has been my steadfast commitment to administering equal justice for all . . . the poor and the rich, the likable and unlikable . . . the first-time offender and the repeat offender.''

At the end of the day, it is this demonstrated commitment to equal justice, delivered after thorough consideration and fidelity to the law, that distinguishes Judge Pearson as an invaluable asset to Ohio's judicial system.

I urge my colleagues, this afternoon, to quickly confirm her in her new position as U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Ohio.

I would close with thanking two people on my staff who have gone above and beyond the call of duty: Mark Powden, my chief of staff, who has, almost weekly, spoken with Judge Pearson, talking about the delays and what is going to get this back on track and how are we going to get her confirmed. I appreciate the work Mark Powden has done. And Patrick Jackson in her office, who, while all this was going on, was getting married. He got married earlier this month, and he was doing that at the same time as we were doing all this. I am grateful to both of them. I thank my colleagues.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, there has been concern, as the chairman pointed out and the ranking member pointed out, on Benita Pearson's views on animal law. With all due respect to my colleague, you know it is a red herring. If you look at the record of Ohio's Northern District, which goes back to 1839, there has been exactly one case on animal welfare. Some 20 years ago, the Cleveland Zoo was sued to stop the transfer of Timmy the gorilla to the Bronx Zoo--I am not making this up--from transferring Timmy the Gorilla to the Bronx Zoo for mating purposes. The case was dismissed. One case in 170 years.

Judge Pearson is qualified, say the two former presiding judges, Chief Judges Carr and White, and the sitting presiding judge, Judge Oliver from the Northern District--a combined 50 years' experience on the district court.

Judge James Carr, the Chief U.S. District Judge at the time of her nomination, lauded Judge Pearson as ``a splendid choice . . . eminently well-qualified by intelligence, experience . . . and judicial temperament.'' His successor, Chief Judge Solomon Oliver, is just as supportive of her nomination.

So is former Chief Judge George White, who wrote that:

Magistrate Judge Pearson's record as a Judicial Officer and

her litigation and business experience do more than idly

suggest her readiness to assume the position of District

Court Judge. Taken all together, you will be hard-pressed to

find a more suitable candidate.

These judges have made glowing reports on Judge Benita Pearson, who has been a magistrate, a CPA, practiced privately, worked for the U.S. Attorney's Office. She will be the first African- American woman to sit on the Federal bench in Ohio. She has been supported by Senator Voinovich and a bipartisan commission of 17 lawyers who picked her. She is a great choice. I ask the concurrence of my colleagues. I yield to Senator Udall.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I appreciate the generosity of the senior Senator from Massachusetts and especially his leadership on one of the most important debates in the 4 years I have been in the Senate. I thank Senator Kerry for that.

Omnibus Trade Act/TAA and HCTC

Mr. President, I hold in my hand 500 pieces of paper, 500 testimonials from retirees who lost their pensions and health care during the GM bankruptcy. These are some of the 50,000 Americans who will be hurt if we do not pass an extension of the health coverage tax credit this week before the year is out.

This stack of paper here does not represent Delta retirees and it does not represent other retirees--thousands of others--who are in the same boat as the Delphi/GM retirees.

Their pensions have been cut. Their employee-sponsored health care has been eliminated. If we do not pass the omnibus trade bill--which includes GSP, trade adjustment, the Andean trade agreement, and the health care tax credit, and some miscellaneous tariffs--if we do not pass this, H.R. 6517, they will take in another economic blow. The blood from this one will be on our hands.

We must pass the omnibus trade bill before this Congress ends. I want to share a handful of letters. I know the Senator from Massachusetts yielded for 5 minutes, so I will do this quickly.

Mary Ann from Warren, OH, writes that she lost 40 percent of her pension, all her health care, and all her life insurance earned from GM/Delphi. Here is what she said:

My husband is self employed and he is on my healthcare. He

suffers terribly with chronic pain due to degenerative disc

disease. He forces himself to work at least part time but

it's a struggle. . . . I have a cerebral condition recently

diagnosed. I spent a week in the hospital early this year and

am still paying on that too. A 75 percent hike in our

healthcare premiums--

And that is what will happen if we do not renew this, which will help these 500 and another 50,000--

while we try to pay these medical balances on a reduced

pension would force us and many others into a downward spiral

of existence. Those who we entrust to represent us must

realize that our story could be theirs if life situations

were different. When do we start treating others how we

ourselves want to be treated?

Here are others.

Dan from Columbus, IN, writes:

Dear Senator Brown--I am a retired Delta Air Line pilot.

During my retirement, Delta took my retirement money that I

had spent a career of time accumulating and left me out in

the cold. The health care tax credit stepped in and helped by

giving our family some insurance premium help. Now this is

being destroyed too.

David from Atlanta, GA:

It is very important that the health care tax credit . . .

be continued. After losing the pension income and insurance

benefits I was promised when I retired from Delta Airlines, I

have made significant adjustments to try to compensate for

the losses.

Still, after cutting back, the cost of living, skyrocketing

insurance premiums, and 2 years of trying to sell my house at

a substantial reduction of price while competing with

foreclosures, the finances of my friends and me continued to

erode.

Gary from Arrowhead, CA: Since Delta Airlines eliminated my pension and health coverage, I looked forward to a Kaiser Permanente HCTC qualified health insurance policy starting January 1. Without this HCTC passage, my premiums will be $2,600 a month.

These go on and on. The omnibus trade bill has received unanimous approval from every Democratic Member of this body. It is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Retail Federation, the AFL- CIO. It is my understanding most Republicans here support it. There are just a few blocking the passage of it.

On Friday, Senator Sessions objected to a request Senator Casey and I made to pass the trade act. I understand his objection. I believe it can be worked through. Senator Sessions said he supports the rest of the package. I hope this obstruction doesn't interfere with the need to move on this omnibus trade package. These 500 letters, if each of my colleagues would read two or three of them, I think they would see how important it is we pass the Omnibus Trade Act. It is about the trade adjustment assistance language. It is about 50,000 people who will not be able to afford their health insurance come January 1. Happy New Year to them. It also will help us with Colombia and other countries around the world in our trade policies. This makes so much sense.

Tomorrow, Senator Casey and I and perhaps some others will ask for a UC. I hope my colleagues can see fit to move forward on this. It is supported by business groups, by labor groups, by the majority of people in this body. I am hopeful we can bring in the few people who still disagree and make this work for our country.

I yield the floor. I thank Senator Kerry for his indulgence.

Mr. President, I rise to echo the words of the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, Mrs. Shaheen, and her support of the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. It is important for our military, it is important for our values, it is important for human rights, it is important for our country.

As we know, for nearly 17 years Federal law has dictated that gay and lesbian Americans serving or hoping to serve in our Nation's military must be silent about their sexual orientation. If that silence were broken, they would face the grim consequences of an almost certain discharge.

The don't ask, don't tell policy, as it has become commonly known, is inconsistent with our American values. It has robbed the military of valuable personnel who can contribute to military readiness and fulfillment of missions at home and abroad. That is why I opposed this policy in the mid-1990s and have advocated for its repeal ever since.

Throughout this debate I have heard from many Ohioans, including members of our military, expressing profound opposition to the policy of don't ask, don't tell. Ohioans such as Cadet Katherine Miller, LTC Victor Fehrenback, who spoke with me at one of my Thursday morning coffees in the Capitol, MAJ Mike Almy, and many other advocates and servicemembers have worked in their communities. They have walked the Halls of Congress to explain why don't ask, don't tell should be overturned.

Their experiences and that of those they represent are reminders that important battles remain in the fight for human rights and justice in our country. But we know for sure that history is on their side.

Today's vote will affirm what military leaders from Defense Secretary Gates to GEN Colin Powell to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen have been saying for some time: Repeal of don't ask, don't tell will make our military stronger. With our Nation at war, it is especially important that our policies promote the recruitment and retention of the very best soldiers, regardless of their race, religion, sexual orientation or gender.

President Obama and Secretary Gates have conducted a year-long review--which many people in this Chamber in both parties, especially my Republican colleagues, asked for--on the impact of fully and openly integrating lesbian and gay Americans into the military. It is no surprise that the report concluded that open service poses no threat to our military readiness or effectiveness.

It is estimated that the don't ask, don't tell policy has cost the American people somewhere between $300 and $500 million to implement. It has resulted in the discharge of almost 14,000 soldiers--14,000 soldiers who were discharged not for performance but because of their sexual orientation. These 14,000 Americans include hundreds of Ohioans who offered to lay down their lives for this country. They deserve better than investigations and discharge. They deserve acceptance, affirmation and, most importantly, the right to serve openly and honestly in America's military.

The strength of our Nation is measured not just by the size of the economy or the might of our military, it is measured by acts consistent with our values, the very values our servicemembers defend and that define our Nation's greatness.

The repeal of don't ask, don't tell is a long overdue victory for our military, a victory for American values, a victory for human rights and, most important, a victory for the American people. I ask support of the measure, a resounding vote out of this Senate to go along with the House so the President can sign this bill and end this policy that has not served the American people well for much of two decades.

I yield the floor, suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask unanimous consent that time under the quorum be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 6510 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6473, which was received from the House and is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.