Floor Statements

Mr. President, I spent a lot of time, as my colleagues have, traveling our States during the elections, to be sure, but also since. I hear a lot of discussion from regular people--not from people running for office per se but regular people--about what this new health care law has meant to them. I meet 22-year-olds who are now on their parents' health insurance plan. If you are 22 in this country today, your chances of finding a job with decent health care are not real high in most places in our country, and

they now celebrate the fact that they can be on their parents' health insurance automatically. That is a big victory for consumers and a big victory for those families.

I also talk to people who have children who have preexisting conditions and could not get insurance as a result. The law now is, an insurance company cannot deny insurance to a family with a child with preexisting conditions. We also know now that someone who is sick and their health care is very expensive, that they cannot be thrown off their insurance because it costs the insurance company too much money.

We know now, and I hear from small businesses who almost all want to insure their employees but simply cannot because of the high costs, they now are getting a 30-percent tax credit to be able to insure their employees, something, as I said, they wanted to do whether they live in Conneaut in northeast Ohio or Middletown and Hamilton in southwest Ohio. I see that all over my State--in Bowling Green, in Toledo, in Zanesville and Chillacothe and Columbus and Bellaire. We are also seeing that so many senior citizens are getting hit hard by high drug prices.

We have begun. As one of the leaders in that effort on the HELP Committee, Senator Bennet, the Presiding Officer, knows that we have been helpful in now beginning to close that doughnut hole that seniors fall into. After they have had $2,000 of drug costs, they are still paying the premium every month, but they do not get any coverage until their costs go above $5,000. That is sort of a cruel bargain that this Congress, for reasons I did not exactly understand--I opposed it back then--passed the drug benefit and inflicted that on seniors. We are beginning to fix that.

We know all that. Those are citizens I talk to about that. Put that aside for a minute, unfortunately, and look at so many elected officials in a State, conservative elected officials, mostly Republicans, who are saying we should repeal the health care law and we should bring back preexisting condition, take 23-year-olds, home from college or home from the service or whatever, and if they do not have TRICARE, throw them off their parents' health care plan, take away the tax cuts to small businesses. That is what they want to do and repeal this health care plan.

My only question is, I guess I am waiting for the first Republican elected official--whether he is an attorney general in Ohio or elsewhere or whether he is a Congressman or she is a Congressman or a Senator--I am waiting for the first one who says: I want to repeal this plan. Take away these consumer protections; I want to repeal this plan and take away health insurance for people who are in high risk pools who are getting insurance now and people down the road who are going to get covered with health insurance, the 50 million Americans who do not have it and the tens of millions of Americans who are underinsured. I want to hear one of those elected officials, who is saying repeal the health care plan, say they are not going to take their government health insurance. I cannot believe the number of elected officials, mostly Republicans, who have been the beneficiaries of government- sponsored health insurance--taxpayer-financed health insurance for 10 years, 20 years, 30 years--who are saying: No, I want to repeal health insurance for millions of Americans who are about to receive it. Some of them are already getting it; all of them getting better consumer protections.

They will keep their plan, paid for by taxpayers. They want to deny it to others. I am waiting for one of my colleagues--and Republicans around the State and around the country who are calling for this health care law to be repealed--to step up and say: Oh, I am not going to take government insurance either. I am still waiting for that day.

I yield the floor.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to share letters from Ohioans from all corners of my State, letters mostly from people who have lost their jobs and depend on something called unemployment insurance. It is insurance, not welfare, not giveaways. People work at a business. Their employer pays into the unemployment insurance fund. Obviously, it is money the employee does not get as income, so we could say it either way: the employee pays or the employer pays. Either way it is insurance. They pay into a fund. When someone loses their job, they get assistance from the fund. This is why it works so well.

When the unemployment rate is above a certain level, a relatively high unemployment rate, we always have extended and maintained unemployment insurance benefits for those workers who have lost jobs. We do that for two reasons: One, because it is the right thing to do if someone loses their job. Whether it is in Boulder in the State of the Presiding Officer or in Galion, OH, it is the humanitarian thing to do. That worker who has lost their job can at least pay most of their bills then, at least stay in the apartment or house and pay the mortgage, pay the rent, pay for food, take care of the kids. They wouldn't be able to without the unemployment insurance monthly payments.

The second reason we do it is, as one of John McCain's chief economic advisers said repeatedly, a dollar in unemployment benefits is about the best stimulus for the economy one could have. When we give a tax cut to a millionaire, as most of my Republican colleagues want to do, if we give $10,000 to a millionaire, they will likely not spend it. They have already spent their money on what they want because they have more than enough to do that. So a tax cut doesn't mean much to them. But an unemployment check means that an unemployed worker will spend that money in the community, at the grocery store, buying shoes for the kids, paying the property tax, paying for their rent and gas bill, paying for gas in the car to go around looking for jobs. The money is recirculated. It is a good economic stimulus and the right thing to do for the worker who has lost their job. That is why the Presiding Officer and others have fought so hard to make sure those benefits are there. It is not welfare; it is insurance.

In spite of what some conservative politicians like to suggest, that it is people sitting around who don't want to work, almost everybody I talked to--whether it was in Conneaut or Middleton or Sidney or Portsmouth--who lost a job wants to go back to work. Unemployment compensation is never as much as the person is making on the job. That is under a formula. That is why they want to go back to work. Plus these are hard-working people who understand that they need to keep looking for a job.

For every job out there, there are roughly five people seeking a job. That is a national figure. But in Ohio, it is no better. That is why I am going to share these letters.

I will start with Timothy from Fairfield. That is a prosperous suburban Cincinnati community in Butler County in southwest Ohio. It happens everywhere, not just the inner city, not just rural Appalachia. It is not just small towns or medium-size cities. It is generally pretty affluent suburbs.

He writes:

Unemployment extensions end in about two weeks and once

again my family worries about what the future will bring.

The last delay made us unable to pay many bills on time and

we still have not fully recovered.

If another delay happens we will certainly be put in such a

hole that I don't see us getting out of.

Not to mention it's the holiday season and I really don't

know what I would tell my 4 and 7 year old if Christmas

wasn't as it has been in the past.

I am in the manufacturing field. I worked as an inspector

and quality engineer.

This next week will be my first of my final 20 weeks of

Ohio emergency unemployment. I search for openings in quality

inspectors and quality engineers within a 50 mile radius of

our town.

How is he going to afford gas if his unemployment extension runs out?

I found zero results. I have been applying for retail jobs,

janitorial jobs, and maintenance jobs.

If I even get to interview the answer is the same. You are

way overqualified for this job.

I was told that the new sporting goods store had over 3,000

applicants.

Are both sides willing to do what needs to be done to avoid

another delay? I don't know what we will do if the extension

is not passed in time.

It is unbelievable that my conservative colleagues are willing to give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires but are unwilling to maintain unemployment benefits for people such as Timothy. When one thinks about that, it is also the anxiety that somebody like Tim feels about his children, about his house, about his being able to provide what he needs during the Christmas season or any other season. So many people in this country have to wait until the Republicans drop their filibuster in order for us to maintain these benefits. That is pretty unconscionable.

Kelly from Summit County, the Akron area in northeast Ohio, writes:

Please help get the unemployment extension passed during

this session.

I am about to exhaust my benefits in three weeks. Everyday

I look for employment, but to no avail.

My mortgage company leaves no room for late or missing

payments.

I don't need the money for Christmas--I need it to pay my

bills and my mortgage.

There will be no Christmas this year, especially when I

begin to get behind on payments.

Kelly says what so many are saying in letters to our office, that this is essential. Getting this relatively meager unemployment assistance, not a lot of money but enough to at least pay her rent-- although I don't know if Kelly is male or female--but to pay the rent, not Christmas presents, nothing elaborate, not even Christmas dinner but to just pay the rent.

Richard from Summit County says:

I am writing to share the reality of my situation that I'm

sure millions are also experiencing. Today I filed my final

claim for unemployment. This is the moment that made me lay

awake at night. The reality is at our home there will be no

Thanksgiving and no Christmas this year. I hear carols being

played, I see ads for Christmas sales. It makes me depressed

like never before. I feel the gifts and celebrations are

meant for other people--the ``haves.'' No more money for my

diabetes medicine, dental checkups, eye drops for glaucoma.

Never have I felt like throwing in the towel before now.

I just wish my colleagues would talk to people like Richard: When I hear carols being played for Christmas sales, it makes me depressed like never before. I feel the gifts and celebrations are meant for other people. No more money for my diabetes meds, no more dental checkups, no more eye drops for glaucoma.

Unemployment benefits are not going to make him comfortable or rich, but it will help him get through these rough times. Instead, to make a political point, my colleagues are saying we are not going to maintain unemployment benefits.

The last one I will read is from Jacqueline from Cuyahoga County in the Cleveland area:

I have been an unemployed human resources professional for

a year and a half. Even after having applied for over 170

jobs, I am still very active in my job search.

These are not people sitting around cashing their checks. She is still very active in her job search.

I go to at least 2 networking events/meetings per week and

I keep a positive attitude in spite of my situation. Yes, I

have applied for jobs in other fields or professions which

use similar and transferable skills. I get no response. I

have worked with recruiters and head hunters, online

networks, and have appealed to friends and family members to

look for opportunities. I have worked full-time since I was

16 years old, even through college. At age 45 and as an

educated professional with so much to offer an organization,

I still want to work for many more years.

She has worked since she was 16. She is now 45. She has worked twice as long as almost the age of these pages who sit in front of us. She has worked for 29 years. She is not a deadbeat. She doesn't want to sit around and collect unemployment. She wants a job. As I said, there are five people pursuing every job out there.

Without unemployment benefits, my family would have lost

our home by now. I am begging you to fight to extend

unemployment benefits until more companies start hiring.

Please don't let 15 million Americans have to worry about

feeding their families this winter. Please urge your

colleagues to pass an unemployment benefit extension before

December 1.

December 1 is approaching. We still can't get our Republican colleagues--it is pretty unbelievable. We have been through this for the third time, I believe, in the last year or so where we have begged and cajoled and pleaded and asked and done whatever we can to get our colleagues to say yes, to not filibuster, to get our colleagues to say yes, to get the supermajority, the 60 votes we need to extend the unemployment benefits.

There is a lot of fear out there. Whether it is in Denver or Cleveland, whether it is in Trinidad or Mansfield, there is all kinds of anxiety and fear and anguish out there. We could do something in this body to lessen it for our fellow Americans.

I ask my colleagues to move forward in maintaining unemployment benefits for the millions of Americans for whom the Christmas season, the holiday season will not be very happy this year.

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

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Over the last few months, our Nation has mourned the loss of several lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender teenagers driven to suicide because of hateful and ignorant bullying and harassment. These tragic circumstances brought families, friends, and concerned citizens together through vigils on public squares in communities all over this country and on college campuses throughout the Nation. Together, millions of fellow Americans have drawn attention to intolerance and violence that LGBT Americans face each day. Together, we can ensure all LGBT Americans that life will get better for them.

As a father, I cannot bear to imagine the unspeakable pain endured by the parents of those teenagers who tragically took their own lives. No parent should have to bury a child. No child should ever feel so hopeless and so forgotten and so alone and so isolated that suicide seems like their only escape. But the rash of highly publicized suicides of LGBT students not only highlights the national epidemic of bullying these students face, it also reminds us that we all as adults, as clergy, as educators, or as peers of these students--we all have a role to play in preventing discrimination.

Bullies target the vulnerable and subject them to cruelty through taunts in the classroom or on the Internet, through chants on the playing field or physical abuse in the neighborhood. Prejudices based on religion or race or disability or sexual orientation or gender or physical or intellectual differences too often translate into physical torment and isolation and abuse against others.

LGBT youth, in particular, are frequently targeted by bullies. Public surveys indicate that 80 percent of LGBT students report regular harassment by fellow students--a rate three times that of heterosexual teens, three times the rate of their heterosexual peers. Seventy-five percent of high school students routinely hear homophobic remarks in school, reinforcing stereotypes and prejudices. Without a safe space to speak openly with a caring adult or a like-minded peer, victims are left to question their self-worth.

On top of the self-doubt and insecurity that all young people feel already regardless of gender or race or sexual orientation--we have all been through that certainly as young teenagers and older teenagers, too, for that matter, but add to that the kind of insecurities that are put on them by bullying tactics, by so many people spouting homophobic remarks.

Too many young gay men and women, boys and girls, are forced into secrecy about who they are rather than affirming the person they should proudly be.

A brave young Ohioan named Nicholas sent me a letter detailing an attack by a schoolyard bully. Here is what Nicholas wrote:

On September 18th, 2009 I was attacked by a student at my

school for being gay. This student beat me in the head with a

hammer three times. He chased me down so he could get the

last two hits. The student attacked me for being gay. I have

no way of using this attack to promote gay rights, to promote

gay equality, but you do. And you could do this for me. I

need your help more than anything. No one deserves to go

through what I went through.

My message to Nicholas and to all LGBT Americans is this: You are not alone. Life will get better. You can find the love and acceptance you deserve, and you will find the love and acceptance you deserve, free from fear and hate. You will realize your full potential every bit as much as anyone else because things are changing in this country.

There is no acceptable justification for the violence experienced by Nicholas or the physical and emotional mistreatment of LGBT students in our schools and in our communities. That is why the Senate must take crucial steps to ensure that schools are safe places for learning, safe places for students, and not breeding grounds for bullying.

First, we must pass the Safe Schools Improvement Act which would help schools implement LGBT-inclusive programming to combat bullying and harassment. Second, we must pass the Student Nondiscrimination Act which would bar schools which receive public money from implementing programs that discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Legislation alone, of course, will not eradicate or put an end to bullying, but we also know what legislation did for women, for children, for civil rights. Attitudes change over time. Legislation helps accelerate that change. That is why those two pieces of legislation matter. They will be major steps toward ensuring safety and equal treatment for all students in our school systems.

Parents and teachers also have a special responsibility to help LGBT youth confront the bullying they face at school. They, too, should ensure that every student knows she is valued, knows he is valued, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

LGBT community centers or national organizations such as the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network are valuable resources for students, parents, and educators.

I remember several years ago an event where students sat together as part of a gay/straight alliance at a high school in western Cuyahoga County. There were 10 students at 2 different tables, 5 gay students, 5 straight students, all supporting one another, understanding each other and accepting their differences. They can still care about one another, and they can protect them, in many cases, from some of the bullying that might have befallen some of them.

To our own LGBT students who are either forced to live a lie or face hostility for simply living their lives, all

of you should know there are resources to help you in times of need. The Trevor Project is the leading national organization focused on crisis and suicide prevention among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth. For more information, if you are feeling alone, anyone watching today feeling alone, helpless, or in crisis, people can visit the Trevor Project's Web site, thetrevorproject.org, or they can call the hotline at 866-488-7386.

For anyone who is in suicidal crisis or in need of help, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by calling 1-800-273-TALK.

To Nick: I don't normally come to the floor and talk about a service like this. I think, though, when people feel alone, they don't always know there is help out there for them. Young people need to know that it is getting better, that life will get better for them, so it is important to share that information on the Senate floor.

To Nicholas: History is on your side. It will, in fact, get better. Workers fought for the right to organize, women fought for the right to vote, African Americans fought for equal justice, and now LGBT Americans of all backgrounds are fighting for equality.

It is up to us to join this fight. It is up to us to be on the side of people whose lives are a little bit more difficult, perhaps, than others' lives. It is that spirit of inclusion, it is the pursuit of the American dream, that will, in fact, make it better for these young people, and it will make it better for all Americans.

I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Banking Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 6162 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Banking Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 6166 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 690, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 691, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, 75 years ago this November, Ohio's first national forest was established. On November 12, 1935, 43 acres in the Appalachian foothills of Lawrence County became the Wayne National Forest. Today, more than 240,000 acres of reclaimed and reforested land spanning 12 counties makeup the ``Wayne.''

For 75 years, rangers, foresters, and dedicated volunteers have worked to restore landscapes that had been abandoned or stripped bare by mining and logging. The early years of the Wayne corresponded with President Franklin

Roosevelt's New Deal program, the Civilian Conservation Corps, CCC. The CCC gave young people across the country work--and a hot meal-- improving our Nation's infrastructure and preserving our natural resources. The legacy of the CCC lives on in the Wayne's Shawnee and Snake Ridge Lookout Towers, constructed in 1939, and the Vesuvius Dam, completed in 1941 and now home to wildlife and recreational activities on the lake.

With the help of President Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Wayne National Forest is once again preparing for the future; restoring ecosystems, improving roads, and installing more than 250 solar panels on its headquarters in Nelsonville.

Home to more than 300 miles of trails, the Wayne receives thousands of visitors and families each year who go hiking, biking, hunting, horseback riding, and camping along the scenic hills and hollows of the forest.

The Wayne has also played an important role in preserving the storied history of the Adena and Hopewell Cultures in Ohio. Because the archaeological ruins of these mound-building cultures have been maintained, a new generation of visitors will learn about the history of Native Americans in Ohio.

Our public lands, and in particular the Wayne, are part of Ohio's heritage and history. John F. Seiberling, a former Congressman from Akron and longtime conservationist said, ``We will never see the land as our ancestors did. But we can understand what made it beautiful and why they lived and died to preserve it. And in preserving it for future generations, we will preserve something of ourselves. If we all have an interest in this land, then we all have a stake in its preservation. There is no more worthwhile cause.''

The Wayne has strengthened the region's economy and encouraged responsible stewardship of southeast Ohio's varied ecosystems and habitats.

I congratulate and thank the rangers, staff, and supporters who for 75 years have served as stewards of Wayne National Forest. When Thomas Jefferson granted Ohio's statehood 207 years ago, southeastern Ohio was the gateway to our nation's westward expansion--and Marietta the first official town of the newly established Northwest Territory. Wayne National Forest plays a vital role in our frontier history and will continue to serve as a getaway for the tens of thousands of Ohioans who enjoy its beauty and embrace its role as one of Ohio's natural crown jewels.

Mr. President, I know Senator Barrasso is relatively new in Washington, House or Senate. I appreciate his words. I am not talking about him. But there are so many opponents of this health care legislation.

First of all, regarding some of the partisan opponents of this law-- the American people do not want to see us relitigate and redebate the health care legislation. They want some focus on job growth. But what strikes me as a bit hypocritical--again, I am not singling out Senator Barrasso because he has not been here very long--there are so many Members in the House of Representatives and in the Senate who have enjoyed government health care for a decade or two or three, where taxpayers paid for their health care. Those conservative Members did nothing, zero, to help those people without insurance, to help those people who had preexisting conditions, to help those people close the doughnut hole, help senior citizens to get help on their drug costs.

Now they want to repeal the health care bill. In other words, they want to keep their government insurance for themselves, but they don't seem to want to help anybody else out there. It just sickens me.

More important, I don't think the public wants us to continue debating health care. The public wants us to work on job growth, to focus on things like I did in Ohio Monday where I gathered 300 small businesses, people who make things, who want to sell to major aerospace manufacturers, in this case Airbus in my State, putting people to work--because that is what it is all about.

Mr. President, I want to speak for a moment about food safety. It is tempting to take the safety of our food supply as given, but it is actually more a goal, one that continues to elude us. Each year in the United States 76 million people contract a foodborne illness. Some get mildly sick, some get very sick, a few actually die. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that more than a few, 5,000 people a year, die from foodborne illness. These are mostly not people in their thirties who are healthy. It is the very young, very old, those whose health may be frail, whose health may not be as strong as others'. Nonetheless, 5,000 people die a year.

Over the last few years we faced melamine in infant formula, harmful seafood from China, tainted peppers from Mexico, E. coli in spinach, Salmonella in peanuts. Sometimes it is international problems. Sometimes it is domestic problems. International problems mean we ought to be looking at

trade policy closer than we have, but that is a debate for another day.

A few months ago we had a nationwide recall of eggs due to Salmonella contamination. Just this week we saw a recall of smoked turkey breast products because of Listeria contamination. The safety of Americans is threatened by a regulatory structure that has failed to keep pace with modern changes in food production, processing, and marketing.

We have at our grocery stores a wonderful thing. We have all kinds of selections: fresh fruits and vegetables and fish and all kinds of foods we didn't have when I was growing up in the 1960s in Mansfield, OH. We did not have that kind of selection in food stores, especially in the winter months. Now we do. That is a great thing, but we don't do what we need to do to guarantee its safety.

It is time to fix this broken system once and for all. The time has come for Congress to pass legislation that will in fact improve our country's food safety system. America's families should be able to put food on the table without fearing any kind of contamination. We shouldn't worry that the food in the school cafeterias, ballparks, grocery stores, or local restaurants will send a child to the hospital and spread panic throughout the community.

That is why I am so pleased we are considering the Food Safety Modernization Act. This legislation will address--I will talk briefly about it and then yield to my colleague from Delaware, Senator Carper-- some of the problems with our current food safety system. It will require facilities to conduct an analysis of the most likely food safety hazards and design and implement risk-based controls to prevent them. It would increase the frequency of plant inspections. It would strengthen recordkeeping requirements and food traceability systems so we know where the food came from before it gets to the grocery store. It provides the FDA with the authority to mandate food recalls, something that is voluntary now.

Most companies step forward and do it. Some do not. Some delay before they do, imposing health risks. It would ensure further study by the FDA on enhanced safety and sanitary methods for the transportation of foods, and we must ensure this includes an examination of the pallets on which our food is shipped.

At home you don't use the same cutting board for chicken that you use for vegetables, or at least you should not, because of potential food safety problems. It is the same thing with these wooden pallets because they can collect--especially wooden pallets--way more bacteria than you can imagine. We require more extensive provisions for heightened security of imports which account for an increasing share of our fresh fruits and vegetables, an increasing share of U.S. food consumption.

This bill is here today because of the strong work especially of Senator Durbin of Illinois and Representative John Dingell of Michigan. Also, I commend Ranking Member Enzi on the HELP Committee and Chairman Harkin and Senators Dodd, Burr, and Gregg for their work.

I also commend the Kroger Company based in Cincinnati, OH, for the work they and other grocery store chains and other food processing companies have done collectively to make sure this legislation works for them on the traceability issue. Many of them, many of these companies, have already set up good traceability provisions by themselves without government involvement. I think Kroger is especially to be commended for doing that. The best way to ensure the FDA can decisively respond to foodborne outbreaks is to authorize a comprehensive food tracing system, as I mentioned.

Earlier this year I introduced S. 425, the Food Safety and Tracing Improvement Act. It would improve the ability of Federal agencies to trace the origins of all contaminated food. I am very pleased that important components and goals of my legislation are included in the managers' amendment. With the addition of these stronger traceability provisions, the FDA will be tasked with establishing a tracing system for both unprocessed and processed food, such as peanut butter. The 2008-2009 peanut butter Salmonella outbreak which sickened more than 700 people and resulted in 9 deaths demonstrates exactly why the FDA needs expanded authority to trace foods.

One victim of the peanut butter Salmonella outbreak was Nellie Napier of Medina, OH. Ms. Napier was an 80-year-old mother of 6 children, 13 grandchildren, and 11 great-grandchildren. She got ill in January of 2009, almost 2 years ago, after eating a peanut butter product tainted with Salmonella. When she got sick, doctors told her family there was nothing they could do and she died shortly thereafter.

The FDA was able to identify the source of the outbreak in a short period of time, but it was incredibly difficult and time consuming for the FDA to determine where all the contaminated peanut butter ended up. The source company sold to 85 other companies. They sold to another 1,500 companies, and many of those companies sold to other companies. There were no trace-back provisions to be able to help and warn others of potential contamination.

Last year, the Inspector General released a report entitled ``Traceability in the Food Supply Chain.'' This report identified significant and unacceptable difficulties in tracing food through the supply chain. The report attempted to trace 40 products through each stage of the food supply chain. They were able only to trace 5 of the 40. That is why we know how important this legislation is. We required the FDA to establish a product tracing system and develop additional recordkeeping requirements for foods the FDA determines to be high risk. We require the Comptroller General to examine and provide recommendations regarding how to further improve the product tracing system. We don't know everything yet that we need to do. This gives the FDA and the Comptroller General guidance and leadership and the authority, in addition to what we have done, to do it in the right way.

I thank Senators Harkin, Enzi, Durbin, Burr, Dodd, and Gregg for the work they have done, and Representative Diana DeGette from Denver and Senators Merkley and Franken, who have been particularly strong advocates working with me.

The goal is to make food safety a foregone conclusion. It is what Americans expect. It is what we have had through many years. We have moved away from that. This puts us right on course to do it right.

I thank the President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for her work on this legislation--she was here late in the evening yesterday--and the effort she has put forward.

It was 10 years ago this month that the Senate passed permanent normal trade relations with China. Initially, that was called most- favored-nation status, as Senator Stabenow remembers. They dressed it up, cleaned it up, put lipstick on the pig, and decided they should call it something else. We know what it has done to our country. We had a trade deficit with China in the fairly low double digits back 10 years ago. Today, our bilateral trade deficit with China is $260 billion. I believe last year it was $240 billion.

The first President Bush said that $1 billion in trade deficit translates into 13,000 jobs. So if we have a trade surplus of $1 billion, it means we are selling a lot more than buying and have gained 13,000 jobs. If we have a trade deficit of $1 billion, we have a 13,000 job loss. Well, we have a trade deficit with China alone of $260 billion, so we know what that means.

Look at what this PNTR with China has done. Look at what our tax laws and trade laws have done, and this legislation will begin to fix the tax laws. Look at what tax laws and trade laws have done to the middle class, to our manufacturing base in Toledo, OH, and Monroe, MI, and points north and south of there. It has all been based on this sort of cynical business plan. Not since colonial times have we seen the world where a company--an industry--will close their manufacturing in our country, they will move their production line and build factories in another country and then sell back their products to the United States. Never before have large numbers of businesses and industries done that, to my knowledge. Now we are seeing what damage it has caused to the middle class. We see the manufacturing job loss. We went from 1 million manufacturing jobs 10 years ago to, during the Bush years, that number shrinking to 600,000 manufacturing jobs in this country.

We are seeing progress. This legislation is progress. Clearly, I am hopeful our Republican colleagues won't object, as they typically have. They know people who have lost jobs, I assume, and they understand that. But we have also seen the President begin to enforce trade laws.

Mr. President, I wish to echo the comments of the Senator from Vermont who has been discussing and debating and critiquing and understanding these issues of job sourcing as well as anybody in this institution. I am incredulous that we are fighting to bring this legislation to the floor, this legislation which will help us rebuild our industrial base, which will help us create, enlarge, strengthen the middle class, which helps us with our budget deficit and our trade deficit and will help us again become a country that knows how to make things.

In my State of Ohio we know how to make things. We know how to make chemicals and paper and cement and steel and autos and aluminum and glass. We led the Nation in many of those things. Yet look around and we see what has happened in our country.

The bill we are debating today is about helping Americans, not appeasing the Fortune 500, which is what the Republicans are doing tonight. It is about saving jobs. It is not about padding corporate bonuses. As they have done again and again over the last year and a half, my Republican colleagues are selling out the middle class.

I wonder if my Republican colleagues have met people who have lost their jobs to China; if they know anybody who has seen a plant close and they know what it does to the family. They lose their job, they lose their health insurance, they sometimes lose their house. They have to explain to their teenage children: Sorry, we are going to have to move. You are not going to have your own room anymore. I am not even sure what school district you are going to go to.

Do they know people such as that when they stand up on an issue this important, and their answer is to talk about the budget deficit as if they didn't run the largest surplus in American history 10 years ago into the largest budget deficit in American history in 8 short years of George Bush government, of tax cuts to the rich, wars that were not paid for, bailouts to the drug and insurance companies in the name of Medicare privatization, deregulation of Wall Street and these trade agreements that continue to send jobs overseas?

Let me put up a chart here to show some examples in my State of some companies that are pretty well known: ``American Standard Company factory in Tiffin To Close.'' If you go into a restroom, most of the plumbing equipment was once made by American Standard in Tiffin, OH. Bain Capital out of Massachusetts, Governor Romney's company, came in and basically did away with that company.

``Etch A Sketch Leaves Home.'' Etch A Sketch is called the Ohio Art Company, in Bryan, OH.

A small town at the corner of Senator Stabenow's Michigan and Indiana. Walmart came to Ohio Art Company and said: We want to make Etch A Sketch. We want to sell it at Walmart for under $10. The only thing that Ohio Art Company could do was shut down that part of the factory and move it to China.

One hundred years of vacuum cleaner production comes to an end in Stark County in Canton, OH. Same story. To the lowest bidder go the lowest paying jobs. Huffy Bicycle, Celina OH, on the Indiana border. Senator Dorgan has talked about what happened to Huffy Bicycle. So they moved that bicycle production to China. These were good-paying, industrial, union jobs usually--not all union jobs. They do not have to be union jobs. But they were jobs that created a middle class.

But do you know what has happened? Not since colonial times has American business had a business plan where they lobby Congress to change the rules. My Republican friends all go along with them because it is part of the big corporate agenda; they lobby Congress to change the rules, they then shut down their plants. In Burlington, VT, in Providence, RI, in Detroit, MI, and Toledo, OH, they shut down their plants, they move them to China, they obviously exploit the lowest paid workers they can get.

They then sell the goods back to their home country. They shut down the plants here, they move them 7 or 8 or 9 or 10,000 miles away. Then they sell the produced products back home to the United States. Look what that does to individual people.

Again, to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, do they know people who lost their jobs when a plant closed and went to Mexico? Do they know people who lost their health insurance when a plant shut down and went to China? Do they know people who had their homes foreclosed on because they lost their jobs and their health insurance and they have nowhere else to turn?

Yet, instead of debating this, instead of their standing and arguing in support of these tax laws and trade laws that have started to bankrupt our country, and surely have caused our industry to decline, they just change the subject. They do not want to debate it. Senator Durbin said--and I would echo it and make the same offer. I will go to any State in the country with any of my Republican colleagues and we will have an open, fair debate on this tax law and on this trade law.

I would love to go anywhere in the United States and have a public debate to show the public and show the American people how much this has undermined our sovereignty, our wealth, our manufacturing base. They are not willing to debate it. But when we bring this forward, you know they will object, and you know what the Senate rules are. One person can stand and object and we cannot pass the bill. They are more interested, way more interested in scoring political points than they are in debating the merits and showing what exactly we need to do as a nation to begin to restore our manufacturing base.

I would conclude with this. I hear my Republican colleagues talk and be critical of everything President Obama has done. That is fine. That is politics. But what they are arguing that we should do is go back to the policies that got us into this.

Let me put in a little bit of historical context. Eight years of President Clinton, January 20, 1993, to January 20, 2001. Those 8 years, 22 million private sector net job increase in this country. Eight years, from January 20, 2001, to January 20, 2009, 8 years of George

Bush, 1 million jobs created, not enough to even keep up with an increase in population.

The 8 years of President Clinton, wages went up for the great majority of Americans. Eight years of George Bush, wages went down for the majority of Americans. Eight years of Bill Clinton, at the end of his eighth year, he left a budget surplus that was the highest in American history. After 8 years of George Bush, he left a deficit that, at the time, was the highest in American history, and they have the gall to be critical of everything Barrack Obama has done, like he created this.

They have the gall to argue that the voters should choose them to go back to the same philosophy. They are not saying do anything different. They still say tax cuts for the richest Americans. They still say privatization of Medicare and privatization of Social Security. Thank God we did not pass that 5 years ago.

They still say more trade agreements that outsource jobs. They still say do not change the tax laws no matter how much damage they have done to us. They still say we should deregulate Wall Street. That is the contrast. That is what this debate is all about, the contrast.

Do we want to move forward? Do we want to move forward and write tax law and trade law that will create a middle class so we do not see another American Standard close in Ohio and another Ohio Art Company close and another vacuum cleaner producer and another Huffy Bicycle company close in Ohio and move offshore.

In the end, it speaks volumes about Republican loyalties, loyalty to these large corporations that outsource jobs, no real loyalty to communities, no real loyalty to these small companies, and no real loyalty to workers. When a plant closes, we know the heartache it brings to the worker, to the families. We know the damage it does to communities as they lay off teachers and firefighters and mental health counselors and libraries and police officers and we know what it does to the wealth of our country and the standard of living of far too many people.

The question ultimately is: Whose side are you on? One thing for sure, it is clear who is on the side of working families in communities. That is why this legislation is so important. That is why we need to move on fixing our trade law and our tax law, so manufacturing jobs begin to move back to this country, and we can protect that industrial base that is so important for our national security and so important for the economic security of our families and of our communities.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, six months ago our Nation accomplished something that so many generations before had struggled to achieve. Six months ago yesterday, with the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, our Nation stood up and declared that the health of our citizens is worth fighting for.

There has been a lot of debate, as the Presiding Officer knows, in this Chamber and in the House of Representatives and on the talk shows and talk radio. There is a lot of debate about theories and death panels and health care and preexisting conditions. But behind all of that is human beings in difficult situations. After hearing people say things about this health care law that simply aren't true, it is important to remember how this affects individual human beings.

This legislation began to take effect when, yesterday, several things happened. One is that a 22-year-old who is home from school who just got a job but doesn't have insurance in that job can stay on her parents' health care plan until she turns 27. Small businesses can get tax breaks to insure their employees. Something most small businesses-- almost every small businessperson I know--want to do is provide decent, affordable health insurance to their employees. They will be better able to do that because of this bill. Also yesterday, because of this legislation, we saw movement toward the doughnut hole being closed. That simply means that senior citizens, conflicted with very high health care costs, having to choose between medication and heating their home or proper food, cutting their pills in half or having to skip a day in taking it because they couldn't afford it--this bill will begin to close that doughnut hole

that President Bush and the Republican Congress created.

We are seeing major progress which affects individual people. Mary from Ashtabula, OH, which is in the northeast corner of the State, shared a story with me about her friend who is paying $56 each month for medications to treat her chronic illness. After the doughnut hole kicks in, she worries that her friend will have to pay literally 10 times that--not $56, which she can handle, but literally $500 per month, which she can't. This increase will catastrophically affect her friend, who is 80 years old and living on a tight budget. Next year, because of this legislation that is taking effect now, Mary's friend will see her prescription drug costs cut in half.

Robert from Cleveland wrote me a letter sharing his concerns about being young and uninsured. As happens to many young adults, Robert was dropped from his mother's insurance on his 21st birthday. He has been unable to obtain full-time employment. He has remained uninsured, not by choice but because he really had no options. In fact, he saw the risks associated with being uninsured firsthand as he accompanied his also uninsured friend to the hospital after sustaining a basketball injury not too long ago. His friend left the emergency room with a $3,000 bill. Robert understands that young adults such as him and his friend will no longer have to face the uncertainty and fear associated with being uninsured.

This legislation also, as of yesterday, allows States such as Ohio and every State in the country to set up what are called high-risk insurance pools. We all know--and the Presiding Officer knows it from talking to people in Rochester and Duluth and St. Paul, and I have talked to people in Toledo and Dayton and Springfield who can't get insurance because they have a preexisting condition. So 462 Ohioans already have signed up for what is called this high-risk insurance pool. That means that even with a preexisting condition, those 462 Ohioans have insurance. Six months ago, they were uninsured and uninsurable. Today, they have insurance.

Laura from Hamilton County wrote to me when she learned about the health care law. She wrote:

I cheered when I learned that children with chronic

conditions cannot be denied health insurance coverage. I have

a child with Type 1 diabetes. I have worried for years about

what will become of him as he ages and moves off our

insurance policy. I have worried for years what his health

plan options will be. It is a relief to now be able to shift

our efforts to battling the disease, not the health care

system.

Any mother or father with a sick child wants to focus their efforts on taking care of that illness, not fighting with insurance companies, not worrying about cobbling together payments to pay the doctor, the hospital, and the drug company.

I am proud to say these changes are just the beginning. As of yesterday, when you renew or purchase a health insurance plan, you don't have to worry about lifetime limits. We know what happens: If you get sick, if you live in Akron or Youngstown and you get very sick and spend a lot of time in the hospital, insurance companies--it is called rescission--will simply cancel your insurance because you exceeded the lifetime limits they set up. Well, no more lifetime limits because of this bill.

From now on, recommended preventive services, immunizations, mammograms, and other recommended screenings, will be covered without a copay or deductible. We want people to get screened, to get preventive care. It saves their health, and it saves all of us money. So they can get less expensive health care. For them, taking away their requirement to pay copays and deductibles will make a huge difference.

There are now new restrictions on private insurers from placing unreasonable limits on your coverage. Patients can access out-of- network emergency room services and children can no longer be denied insurance because of a preexisting condition. Think of the parents we talk to who have a child who is sick and can't get insurance because that child has a preexisting condition, as if a parent wanted it that way. Now we have fixed this.

The Presiding Officer was part of this debate, as all of us in this institution were, during last year and the beginning of this year when we passed this bill. We know what the opponents--people speaking mostly on behalf of the insurance industry, the drug industry, and people who just don't agree that we should do something like this--we know what they did. They lied about death panels. They spread half-truths about costs. They even labeled health care reform ``communism.''

They did the same thing with Medicare. I remember the same arguments when I was a kid. I was 12 years old, 13 years old when Medicare passed. They used the same arguments about Medicare. They said: The government is going to stand between you and your doctor. They said: It is going to turn the United States into the Soviet Union. They said: We are never going to be able to get health insurance again. It is going to be big government running our lives. I don't think they say that about Medicare anymore. They have tried to dismantle and privatize Medicare, but they know it has worked.

In the 1930s, these same people with the same philosophy campaigned against Social Security, saying it wouldn't work. In the 1960s, they campaigned against Medicare, saying it wouldn't work. Now they are campaigning against the health care law.

There are Republicans all over this country--not many voters, I don't think--who are talking about repealing the health care law. So what they are going to do is kick the 23-year-old off their parents' insurance. Now they are going to take away these tax breaks for small businesses to insure their employees. They are going to reinstate the doughnut hole. They are going to put more costs back on senior citizens, who finally are getting some help with their drug costs. I don't get it. They are going to bring back preexisting conditions. They are going to say it is OK again to deny somebody coverage for a preexisting condition. I don't think the public is going to buy that. I don't think this institution will vote that way.

It is important to recognize from where we have come. Most of all, it is important to think about individual human beings we have met who are affected so positively by this law. They are going to be able to get insurance. They are not going to be denied coverage if they have a preexisting condition. Businesses will be able to help their employees by covering them for insurance. Senior citizens are going to get significant help for their drug costs. What is not to like about that? That is why it is important that we stand firm as we mark this 6-month beginning of these changes that will make our health care system work better, be more responsive to people, and, most importantly, take care of individual Americans better than ever before.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 499, S. 3196.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Kaufman-Voinovich substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, without any intervening action or debate; and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.