Floor Statements

Mr. President, May is National Mental Health Month. This proud tradition was started over 50 years ago. Each May, the mental health community comes together to raise awareness about mental health disorders and to celebrate recovery. The last 50 years have seen significant progress in the treatment of mental disorders.

We know that with treatment and support, it is possible to recover.

Dr. Fred Frese knows this first hand. I met Dr. Frese at a roundtable that I held in Cleveland, Ohio. Dr. Frese served as Director of Psychology at Western Reserve Psychiatric Hospital for 15 years. He is currently an Assistant Professor of Psychology in Clinical Psychiatry at Case Western Reserve University and Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine. He has authored and reviewed numerous articles and chapters, lectured in several countries and served on the boards of trustees of various organizations that work on behalf of individuals with disabilities.

In 1999, Dr. Frese received the Hildreth Award, the highest honor given by the American Psychological Association's Psychologists in Public Service Division. Over the course of his career, he has testified numerous times before both houses of the United States Congress. Dr. Frese's career has been remarkable. His life has been remarkable.

He has been living with paranoid schizophrenia since 1966. Dr. Frese is remarkable. But his recovery is not unusual.

Many people stricken with mental illness can and do recover with appropriate treatment. But the stigma associated with mental health disorders can discourage people from getting the help they need. The U.S. Surgeon General's seminal report on mental health cites stigma as a significant barrier to recovery.

I am proud to say that Ohio's Departments of Mental Health and Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services are doing something about it. They have launched a ``Think Outside the Stigma'' campaign, a public information effort to increase awareness about the misperceptions associated with mental health and substance use disorders.

Today I am introducing a resolution commending this campaign.

My colleague in the house, Congressman Zack Space, is offering a companion resolution.

Imagine a world where individuals with mental disorders are supported and treated, not marginalized and discriminated against. Imagine a world where we see individuals first and disability second. Imagine the wealth of talent and resources that individuals with mental illness can realize with treatment. Individuals like Dr. Frese.

We must work together to overcome the unfair and unnecessary burden of stigma associated with mental illness and substance use disorders. We know that treatment can work. We know that people can recover. We know that Americans are well worth the investment.

We know that Americans are well worth the investment.

Mr. President, May is National Mental Health Month. This proud tradition was started over 50 years ago. Each May, the mental health community comes together to raise awareness about mental health disorders and to celebrate recovery. The last 50 years have seen significant progress in the treatment of mental disorders.

We know that with treatment and support, it is possible to recover.

Dr. Fred Frese knows this first hand. I met Dr. Frese at a roundtable that I held in Cleveland, Ohio. Dr. Frese served as Director of Psychology at Western Reserve Psychiatric Hospital for 15 years. He is currently an Assistant Professor of Psychology in Clinical Psychiatry at Case Western Reserve University and Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine. He has authored and reviewed numerous articles and chapters, lectured in several countries and served on the boards of trustees of various organizations that work on behalf of individuals with disabilities.

In 1999, Dr. Frese received the Hildreth Award, the highest honor given by the American Psychological Association's Psychologists in Public Service Division. Over the course of his career, he has testified numerous times before both houses of the United States Congress. Dr. Frese's career has been remarkable. His life has been remarkable.

He has been living with paranoid schizophrenia since 1966. Dr. Frese is remarkable. But his recovery is not unusual.

Many people stricken with mental illness can and do recover with appropriate treatment. But the stigma associated with mental health disorders can discourage people from getting the help they need. The U.S. Surgeon General's seminal report on mental health cites stigma as a significant barrier to recovery.

I am proud to say that Ohio's Departments of Mental Health and Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services are doing something about it. They have launched a ``Think Outside the Stigma'' campaign, a public information effort to increase awareness about the misperceptions associated with mental health and substance use disorders.

Today I am introducing a resolution commending this campaign.

My colleague in the house, Congressman Zack Space, is offering a companion resolution.

Imagine a world where individuals with mental disorders are supported and treated, not marginalized and discriminated against. Imagine a world where we see individuals first and disability second. Imagine the wealth of talent and resources that individuals with mental illness can realize with treatment. Individuals like Dr. Frese.

We must work together to overcome the unfair and unnecessary burden of stigma associated with mental illness and substance use disorders. We know that treatment can work. We know that people can recover. We know that Americans are well worth the investment.

We know that Americans are well worth the investment.

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

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

Mr. President, economic anxiety is pervasive among the middle class in my State of Ohio and throughout our great country, and there is good reason for that. The average duration of unemployment-- 17.5 weeks--is longer than at the start of the two previous recessions. In 2001, it took the average unemployed worker about 12.5 weeks to find work. In 1990, it took the average unemployed worker almost 12 weeks to find work. The average duration of unemployment now is about 17.5 weeks.

In fact, long-term unemployment is higher now than it has been at any other time since Congress first extended unemployment benefits, since 1980. The share of workers suffering long-term unemployment, meaning those who remain jobless after their first 6 months of benefits run out--so if their benefits run out after 6 months, that defines long- term unemployment by the Government--the share of those workers is nearly 17 percent higher than the 11 percent at the start of the 2001 recession and higher than the 9.8 percent at the start of the 1990 recession.

My State of Ohio has not added jobs since the end of the last recession, even while economists and an indecisive President wonder whether the country is entering another one, with all of their definitions and all of their pondering these questions and all of the indifference that comes out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. What I do know is that there are 58,000 fewer jobs in Ohio than there were in November 2001.

In the past year around my State, I have attended almost 100 roundtables where I have convened meetings of 120, 125 people who sit around a table and talk to me about their hopes and dreams, what is happening in their communities, ways I can help, and all of the things that can help me do my job in the Senate. One of the topics that came up again and again during these meetings was the topic of economic insecurity. Wages are stagnant, jobs are scarce, and jobs are too often temporary. Sometimes, laid-off workers have seen their lives change. Instead of one good-paying job, they are holding two part-time or full- time jobs that pay significantly less than the job they held earlier. Middle-class families are struggling now and deeply worried about the future.

The Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee held a hearing today on plant closings and workers' rights. This summer marks 20 years since Congress passed major plant closing legislation known as the WARN Act, a bill championed by Senator Howard Metzenbaum from Ohio, who

held this seat, and Senator Kennedy, who is our committee chair today on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

One of the witnesses today was a gentleman from Senator Kennedy's State of Massachusetts, Joe Aguiar, who worked for a fabric manufacturer for nearly 30 years. He and 900 coworkers were laid off without any notice last summer. As are so many workers in manufacturing, he is about 50 years old. Like so many other workers in my State of Ohio, in Springfield and Lima and Tiffin and Marietta, their lives have been upended. For most, the pensions and health care which they earned and which they desperately need and which they thought had been promised to them, so often the pensions and health care will be slashed.

Mr. Aguiar, as workers do in places such as Marion, OH, and Xenia and Zanesville--those workers need an extension of unemployment insurance. Now more than ever, we need to extend those unemployment benefits because so many workers see their unemployment benefits run out because they can't find comparable jobs.

It is very simple. Economists on Wall Street and Washington and universities all say that every dollar invested in unemployment benefits leads to $1.64 in growth--more than any other stimulus package, any other stimulus program, any other way to put money into the economy. We had this discussion, and the unemployment extension was blocked by congressional Republicans some months ago. In addition, we offered a stimulus package which will, in fact, put money in people's pockets--a good thing. Unemployment extension would have come quicker and put money into the pockets of those who will spend it immediately because they are struggling. They need the money for gas for their cars to go out and look for jobs, for food to feed their families, and the daily necessities of life.

The Congressional Budget Office agrees that a dollar in unemployment benefits leads to $1.64 in growth, finding that extending unemployment benefits is cost-effective and the single fastest acting measure.

The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and the Akron Beacon Journal in my State all agree. Last week, the House approved an extension of unemployment insurance. The Democrats are trying to--or are going to--include unemployment insurance extension in the stimulus package. We hope the Republicans don't filibuster this, and that the President finally changes his mind and signs an extension of unemployment insurance. It is a reasonable extension and needs to be done now.

As I came over here today to talk about unemployment benefits and extending them, my thoughts turned to Senator Kennedy and his family. Senator Kennedy, who we find out today has been diagnosed with a serious illness, has been fighting for an extension of unemployment insurance certainly lately in this case, and other times, but he is always fighting for workers, the poor, and the middle class. Nobody in this Congress has consistently, or for a longer period of time, in the history of this institution, fought for workers or the middle class the way Senator Kennedy has, and the way he will continue to; he has been tireless about this.

Just last week, I stood on the Senate floor with Senator Kennedy as we worked together to pass legislation that came out of his committee, a committee on which I also sit, the Health, Education, Labor, Pension Committee, to establish collective bargaining rights for firefighters and others. When it comes to issues facing working families, Senator Kennedy, as recently as last week, fought for legislation to give workers a civil right--the right to collective bargaining. He has been the compass of this institution too. He focuses his attention and our attention on the insecurities so many families in this country are facing. Our prayers today are with him as he heals, and with his lovely family.

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

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for his terrific work as chairman of this committee, especially the work he does on conservation, nutrition, and for family farmers.

We have for many months been debating the farm bill, legislation that wears many hats, all of them important. It is an agriculture bill, it is a food bill, it is an energy bill, it is a conservation bill, it is a world development bill, and it is an economic development bill. Melding these priorities, each one critical to our Nation's future, is a profound accomplishment. I particularly applaud Chairman Harkin for his work.

Last spring, I held a series of roundtables throughout Ohio and heard directly from farmers about what this year's farm bill should look like. They told me a safety net that lends stability to market segments buffeted by unpredictable costs and volatile prices is essential. Farmers need a safety net that makes sense, but it is important to understand that farmers are not looking for a handout. Rather, farmers are looking for assistance when prices drop or natural disasters strike.

This bill incorporates a safety net proposal I put forward with Senator Durbin, the Average Crop Revenue Program, which will help family farmers in Ohio and consumers and taxpayers across the country by strengthening and diversifying the farm safety net. For the first time ever, farmers will be able to enroll in a program that insures against revenue instability, which, for many farmers, makes more sense than the traditional price-focused safety net.

Conservation programs were another frequent topic at the roundtables I held. One point is clear: Farmers do not want Washington rhetoric about conservation and alternative energy; they want commonsense programs and meaningful incentives, which this bill begins to provide.

As I traveled around Ohio, I met with Mark Schwiebert, a corn farmer in northwest Ohio, who will take advantage of the Average Crop Revenue Election Program. By targeting overall revenue rather than simply price, farmers can receive better protections against two things: natural disasters--therefore, low yield--and price volatility.

I met the same week with Ralph Dull, a hog farmer from Montgomery County who uses wind turbines to run his farm. Promoting sustainable farm-based renewable energy, such as the wind energy that Ralph's turbines produce, is another key element of the farm bill.

Encouraging these ventures will help expand and diversify U.S. energy sources, while invigorating rural economies.

During a roundtable in Chillicothe, I met with fruit and vegetable farmers who asked for more support as they provide fresh and healthy produce to Columbus and that region of the State.

The farm bill creates a new program, the Healthy Food Enterprise Development Center, that will connect local farmers to communities that need access to healthy, affordable food.

During a roundtable in Wayne County, I talked with dairy farmers such as Bryan Wolfe who told me about the difficulty he has had meeting rising feed costs. The bill provides relief for these dairy farmers by linking the dairy safety net to the cost of feed.

This bill does something else. It fights hunger. When the purchasing power of food stamps erodes, so does our Nation's progress against hunger. This bill increases food stamp benefits and indexes the benefits to inflation. Nearly 400,000 people in Ohio will receive additional benefits from this bill.

In Hocking County, OH, more than 2,000 residents went to the local food bank in a single day. That is over 7 percent of the local population. While we need to do more, this bill is a major step, especially in nutrition. We need to keep our eye on McGovern-Dole to make sure these dollars are available for nutrition all over the world.

But this bill moves us forward. Ohio's families need this farm bill, and Ohio's rural communities deserve this farm bill.

Mr. President, tomorrow we celebrate Armed Forces Day. Communities across my State, from Van Wert to St. Clairsville, from Sandusky to Ironton, will pause to honor the service and sacrifice of the men and women in all branches of the military service as they and we celebrate Armed Forces Day.

I have held close to 100 roundtables around my State where, in many of them, I had the opportunity to speak with dozens of these honorable man and women. Those conversations reinforced my profound respect for their unstinting bravery, their unshakable sense of duty, and their unwavering commitment to our national security.

Not long ago, at Walter Reed I visited two Ohio marines recovering from wounds suffered in Iraq. I asked each of them what was the first thing they thought about when they realized they were wounded. Both marines, independently of one another, said: ``Can I stay in the Marines.'' That simple statement speaks volumes about our men and women in uniform.

Armed Forces Day is an opportunity to honor our troops, an opportunity to honor the sacrifices they and, equally importantly, their families have made to protect our Nation, and an opportunity to honor the promises our Nation has made to repay their services and sacrifices. That is so important. We are stewards of those promises. We have a responsibility to work every day, against opposition sometimes, to ensure that our Armed Forces receive the wages and benefits and services they have earned. Honoring our troops should be more than sentiment. It should be action. When we make promises to our troops, we should keep them. They most certainly have kept their promises to us.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in a little more than 2 hours, I will join members of the United States and Colombian labor organizations at a news conference speaking out against human rights abuses in Colombia, speaking out against the pending free-trade agreement that would ignore those abuses and, in some sense, excuse them. Much of the talk about this agreement centers around the violence and impunity in Colombia, especially as it relates to trade unionists. And for good reason. International organizations, human rights and religious groups look at Colombia's record with alarm and urgency. Human rights defenders, trade unionists, community leaders, and religious leaders are today, in too many cases, receiving death threats from rearmed paramilitary groups such as the Black Eagles and are reeling from a new wave of violence.

Before, during, and after a countrywide rally on March 6, 2008, against paramilitary and all forms of violence, at least two march organizers were killed. Union leaders Carlo Burbano and Carmen Cecilia Carvajal were killed for simply trying to voice their views. Three other social leaders were killed in events that also were associated with the march. March organizers all over the country received death threats. One organizer's house was attacked with gunfire on February 29. Those human rights issues are serious. Yet the administration takes them in stride, barely acknowledging the Colombian culture of violence and then impunity, in too many cases, for those who committed those violent acts.

In a short while, I will stand with nearly a dozen brave women and men who have come to Washington to give witness to the horrific danger they and their loved ones face every day. These brave men and women face threats to their jobs, their families, their homes, and their lives. They are under threat because they have taken a stand. They have fought for labor and human rights in Colombia.

One message I want them to take back to Colombia is that we are not taking lightly what is happening to them. The administration may be taking it lightly, but an awful lot of people in the House and Senate and an awful lot of Americans don't take this lightly. We will push the Bush administration to take a stand against the violence occurring in Colombia instead of glossing over it.

The President must not forsake our Nation's values, our profound respect for the rule of law, and our Nation's hard-won progress on behalf of labor and human rights and basic rights. Again, the President must not forsake our Nation's values and our profound respect for the rule of law or our hard-won progress to establish labor, human, and basic rights. The President must not forsake our values or dismiss the sacrifices of so many.

The Colombian Government has taken steps to strengthen legal institutions and processes--I acknowledge that--but the bottom line is the violence is not subsiding. Murders of labor leaders continued at a pace of one per week already this year.

Some newspapers have said the violence is down--and although it was down last year, now it is back up--and we should move on with this Colombia trade agreement because the violence is down. But when there is one labor activist killed every single week, it is hard to say that is an acceptable level. That is what people in the administration are saying. That is what some newspapers are saying, that that is an acceptable level of violence. No, we should not approve a trade agreement when that kind of violence is aimed at too many labor activists.

For the sake of both our nations, the United States should not sign a trade

deal with Colombia that shortchanges workers, that rewards polluters, that gives businesses the same power as sovereign governments. Later, I will talk more about a part of this trade agreement and how it does reward polluters and gives businesses the same power as sovereign governments. In many cases, corporations will be able to override the democratically attained rule of law, rules, and regulations. More on that later.

Back to the issue at hand with Colombia, we absolutely should not sign a trade deal that forgives treachery toward labor leaders, that says it is OK that these labor leaders are murdered. We in this body will fight alongside our Colombian labor friends for fair trade, and we will fight for their efforts to end the violence.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I concur in what the junior Senator from Maine has said, if the volunteer firefighter organizations worked closely with Senators Gregg and Kennedy and they are supportive and have signed off on the language.

I am particularly pleased to participate in this discussion for a lot of reasons. One of them is because I was in the Ohio State legislature many years ago--about 25 years ago--when we debated a bill that would have given collective bargaining rights to Ohio first responders. That legislation eventually passed. I have to tell you Ohio, partly

because of that legislation, has the best public safety forces in the United States of America, the best police officers, the best firefighters, and the best EMS professionals. I may be biased about that, but I am also right.

I have worked with the firefighters in Cincinnati to push for legislation that would help eliminate needless risks to their safety on the job. I have worked with firefighters in Lorain and Akron to make sure Federal and municipal firefighters receive the proper benefits when injury strikes. I have worked with police officers to fight for the COPS Program and with EMS professionals to reduce the redtape surrounding hometown hero benefits. All these men and women have pledged to fight for our lives. Every single day they bear deadly risks on our behalf.

The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act gives Members of this body an opportunity to fight for first responders, just as they fight for us. It gives us an opportunity to take on risk and overcome it, just as our first responders do. S. 2123 will reduce the risk of injury or death to first responders and the public they serve.

The Alexander amendment will take away our ability to do that. S. 2123 will reduce the risk of a first responder workforce shortage. The Alexander amendment, again, will take away our ability to do that. It will reduce the risk that first responders will be grossly overworked or dramatically underpaid. The Alexander amendment will take away our ability to do that. It will reduce avoidable risks, and when it comes to public safety, avoidable risks are unconscionable risks.

Some public safety professionals have the right to negotiate fair wages, decent benefits, and proper equipment. Some don't have that right. That is because some States empower their first responders to collectively bargain and others don't.

Collective bargaining is not just about wages or benefits; it is about doing the job in the safest way possible, doing the job in the best way possible. If first responders, without bargaining rights, are underpaid or overworked or poorly outfitted, their options include living with it or leaving.

Neither option serves the public good. Our Nation has a stake in ensuring that public safety jobs are filled in every town, every city, and every State.

Denying first responders the right to negotiate fair wages--denying them the right to negotiate their own safety--is not exactly a strong selling point for these jobs. That is why the Alexander amendment should go down and the bill should pass.

The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act ensures that every first responder, regardless of where she or he lives, can do that. This bill promotes fairness and safety. It wasn't just written for first responders--police, firefighters, and EMS professionals. It was also written for those who rely on first responders. That is us. This bill was written for us.

Senator Alexander's amendment, when he spoke, talked about the ``Washington knows best'' attitude. I thought about that as he was talking. His points were well made and well articulated. I wear on my lapel a pin that is a depiction of a canary in a birdcage. About 100 years ago, the mine workers used to take the canary into the mine, and if it died from toxic gas or from a lack of oxygen, the mine worker knew he had to get out of the mine. In those days, the worker had no Government that cared enough to protect him, no union strong enough to protect him, and he didn't have collective bargaining rights. We know that 100 years ago, a baby born in this country lived to be about 46 or 47 years old. Today, a child lives 30 years longer. Do you know why that is? It is not mostly miracle medical technology. Certainly, chemotherapy and heart transplants and other things help many of us live longer. But the reason people live 30 years longer today is, frankly, because of national standards, because of collective bargaining rights. Look around. We have strong collective bargaining laws, and people live 30 years longer because we have strong laws on safe drinking water and clean air. We have strong laws on minimum wage and Social Security and Medicare and prohibition on child labor and protections for women and all the things that were negotiated at the bargaining table and were passed by this Congress--setting national standards on clean air, on safer drinking water, on worker safety, national standards on a whole host of issues that are important to all of us. That is why when I hear this ``Washington knows best,'' we will do it our own way--we have not done that on civil rights or worker rights. As a nation, we share these values, whether we are from Wyoming, Tennessee, New Jersey, Massachusetts or Ohio, and we share these values of helping people, giving them collective bargaining rights, passing a minimum wage increase, having safe drinking water and clean air and pure food laws--all that our country has stood for.

Also, Senator Alexander said this act imposes an unfunded mandate on cities and States, and they would not even be able to afford new benefits for public safety officers. I will answer that for a moment. First of all, under the bill, no costs are imposed. The bill comes with no pricetag. There is not a single provision in the bill that requires cities and States to spend a penny.

Senator Alexander spoke about Pulaski and other communities in Tennessee, saying we are going to go to Tennessee and tell them how much they are going to have to pay first responders in Pulaski or in Nashville. We don't want to do that. I don't want the Federal Government to tell us what first responders in Mansfield, Zanesville, Lima, Springfield, and Xenia should get. But this bill doesn't do that. It doesn't set those kinds of standards, and we know that.

I wish to speak to a couple other issues. No particular terms are imposed in this legislation. Local governments under the Kennedy-Gregg bill are free to write their own contracts. The bill doesn't require any particular terms. State and local officials will sit down with workers and figure out together what will work for their communities. That is the whole point of collective bargaining, not to impose this health provision or this level of pension or that particular wage. It doesn't do that. It simply gives those communities the right to organize and bargain collectively.

There is no binding arbitration in this bill. Many States have done binding arbitration. This bill doesn't require binding arbitration. So no third party can require a government to raise wages or spend any money the local government and their citizens don't agree to spend.

State and local legislatures have the final say. We went out of our way to respect the autonomy of State governments. One way we have done that is to let State and local legislatures have the final say on collective bargaining agreements. The States can give their legislatures the right to approve or disapprove funding for any negotiated agreements. Again, that is what collective bargaining is all about, whether it is in New Jersey, Massachusetts, Wyoming, Ohio, or Tennessee.

This bill most specifically is about mandating a discussion between employers and workers. It is not a mandate. It certainly is not an unfunded mandate. That is why the Alexander amendment should be defeated. That is why the underlying bill should be approved.

I certainly will yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I certainly agree with the senior Senator from Massachusetts. In my State in Ohio, I have watched for 25 years what has happened with public employee collective bargaining. It has made the State better.

At the beginning of my comments, I talked about Ohio, I believe, has the best police, fire, and EMS forces in the entire country. A big part of that came out of collective bargaining.

Many times in communities when the city council reaches a difficult position with their police or with their fire or with their other first responders, the Federal Government does not get involved. We don't mandate that there should be a certain level of pay or certain level of fringe benefits or certain level of worker protections as they do their jobs. That is up to them, and this bill makes that easier to accomplish.

In no way is there a mandate, and in no way is this an unfunded mandate. No costs are imposed, no terms are imposed, there is no binding arbitration. As Senator Kennedy said, if Newton, MA, Lynn or Boston want to have binding arbitration or factfinding, they can do that. It is the same with Marion, Portsmouth, and Ravenna, OH. They make those decisions. That is the beauty of this legislation. We set up the system of collective bargaining and let them make those determinations.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy again for his comments. Look at what happened in this country over the last decades, as we set up a system of collective bargaining for private employees. This body had no interest in telling GM and the UAW how to negotiate a contract, only that the rights of collective bargaining are recognized in this country.

We have the same view--not a mandate, not an unfunded mandate, to be sure--the same view of setting up collective bargaining with governments, elected officials, in all that we do.

As Senator Kennedy said, it is all pushed to the local level. They will make the decisions. That is why defeat of the Alexander amendment is crucial. It undoes all the good in this bill. After defeating the Alexander amendment, this legislation should receive an affirmative vote.

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

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

I thank the Presiding Officer and the Parliamentarian.

Trade

Mr. President, for the last year, 15 months, 16 months, or so, as I have traveled throughout my home State of Ohio, I have held 95 or so roundtables with small business owners, entrepreneurs, workers, community leaders, family farmers, educators, and everywhere I go I hear variations of the same story--about plants that have closed and left for Mexico or China, and workers, often in their fifties and sixties, who have few alternatives.

Manufacturing has been devastated over the past 5 years. Ohio has lost upwards of 200,000 manufacturing jobs since 2001, and this administration has been largely indifferent.

One of these roundtables was held in Tiffin, OH, a small manufacturing city of about 20,000 people, an hour or so from Toledo. A company well known, American Standard, a company that makes plumbing equipment, was bought out by an investment banking firm from Boston in November. In December, they notified the workers they were going to shut down the plant and move its production elsewhere.

A couple hundred workers lost their jobs, many of them lost big chunks of their pension, and some of them lost their health care. Yet the investors who came in and bought American Standard did, of course, very well.

Today, Ohio and its neighbors feel this problem of plant shutdowns, what it means not just to the workers and their families, but what it means to the communities as it relates to police protection and fire protection and teachers, as these communities are badly hurt, particularly smaller cities, and they simply cannot afford to hire as many police and firemen and teachers.

Ohio and its neighbors feel this problem most acutely, but it is the Nation's problem. Our economy cannot prosper unless we make and sell goods as well as services. Yet for the past several years, much of our Nation's greatest engineering prowess has not gone to Toledo or Dayton or Youngstown but, instead, to Wall Street.

Unfortunately, traditional manufacturing has declined as a share of our economy, while the manufacture of financial products has become increasingly important.

When I was elected to Congress in 1992, our trade deficit was $38 billion--$38 billion a decade and a half ago. Today, it exceeds $800 billion. With oil reaching $121 per barrel, and perhaps higher soon, the trade deficit will likely only increase in the years ahead.

Leading up to the Ohio Presidential primary in March, the media focused on NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. In Ohio, when we talk about NAFTA, we mean our overall trade policy, be it with Mexico and Canada, or China, or Central America. But the media, of course, hears only the word ``protectionism.'' When you think about it, that is a pretty interesting choice of words. On the one side you have proponents of free trade, while on the other side you have what many papers label as ``protectionists.''

Those of us in favor of fair trade are, indeed, trying to protect what we believe is important. We would like to protect the labor standards our country has fought so hard to establish over many decades. We would like to help our trading partners, the developing world, to improve their labor standards. We would like to protect consumers in this country from defective and even dangerous products. We would like to protect our children from toys covered with lead paint and our hospital patients from tainted blood products. We would like to protect the ability of our manufacturers to compete against foreign companies without having to overcome trade barriers such as currency manipulation.

So, yes, there are things I would like to protect. But so-called free traders are interested in protecting their interests, as well. They would like to protect their beef from imports. They would like to protect pharmaceutical companies, as they do. They would like to protect financial services. In fact, trade agreements of recent years basically are chock full of protections--protections for the financial service industries, protections for the pharmaceutical industry, protections for big oil.

In fact, NAFTA--what I hold in my hand is not the actual NAFTA trade agreement but NAFTA was about this size. NAFTA contained hundreds of pages of protections--protections in areas that go way beyond tariffs on goods. It is similar with the Colombia trade agreement; it is also about this size. If they were free-trade agreements, you could have written them on about this many pages: five, six pages. All you would need is a tariff schedule--a schedule of tariffs we were going to reduce or eliminate. But, instead, NAFTA and the Colombia Free Trade Agreement and these others are this big. Do you know why?

It is not just the tariff schedules. They also have protections for the drug industries, protections for the banks, protections for the oil industry, protections for all kinds of corporate interests in every one of these trade agreements. That is why when we talk about protections, let's be fair. Yes, to be sure, I want to protect workers. I want to protect communities such as Tiffin, OH. I want to protect Sandusky and protect Lorain and protect Springfield and protect Zanesville. I want to make sure those communities are not devastated by these trade agreements that have all kinds of protections for the largest corporate interests but very little for the environment, even less for workers, and even less still to protect our food supply and our toy supply for our children.

We need to recast this debate. Those of us who want to change the rules are not protectionists, in spite of what every elitist newspaper from the New York Times to the Los Angeles Times and everything in between likes to say. Those of us who want to enforce trade laws and defend against bumping Chinese steel products are not protectionists. Those who want safe ingredients in pharmaceuticals we import are not protectionists. Those who want to make sure our children's toys coming from China--after our toy companies outsource jobs, push the Chinese subcontractors to cut costs. They cut costs by putting lead-based paint on toys because it is cheaper, it is easier to apply, it is shinier, it dries faster. Yet then these products, these toys come into the United States, and the Bush administration has weakened consumer protection laws and cut the number of inspectors so, because of this trade policy, this protectionist, protect-industry-at-all-costs trade policy, we have these tainted toys entering the bedrooms of too many of our children.

Trade is not just about exchanging goods between countries. Trade, when done right, is about lifting workers in the United States and lifting workers abroad out of poverty. It is about creating new industry. It is about creating new business. It is about creating new jobs. It is about ensuring strong and thriving economies for all parties involved.

Fair trade products--for example, coffee, tea, bananas, flowers-- products once relegated to specialty shelves in health food stores have now found their way into mainstream America.

Costco and McDonalds have begun to promote fair trade. That is fair trade

where workers share in some of the profits they produce for their employers. They know it means quality products and good business sense at home. In the coffee fields of Nicaragua, fair trade products mean a bright future for tens of thousands of young girls--girls who often would not have been able to go to school, but they are able to because their parents--coffee farmers in the case of Nicaragua--are making an income that gives them enough, sometimes more than $1 a pound, as opposed to coffee that is not fair trade where maybe they get only half that. The kids of those workers do not get to go to school.

Fair trade products mean that farmers in developing nations earn two to three times more for their products, and those children, as I said, can get an education.

Fair trade products mean workers on flower farms across Latin America will be free from poisonous pesticides that cause death and birth defects.

Fair trade products mean that workers in developing nations will earn more and be able to buy more from us--the whole point of trade. That means, obviously, increased exports for U.S. businesses.

Fair trade means trade--and more of it--but with a very different set of rules, not this kind of protectionism to protect the drug companies and the oil industry and the insurance industry and the financial services, but trade agreements with a different set of rules that help lift up people, both in the developing world and in this country.

Proponents of the same failed trade policies of the last 15 years need to stop selling the trade deal with Colombia, for example, as a path to a stronger economy.

NAFTA sent 19 million more Mexicans below the poverty line. Today, there are 19 million more Mexicans living below the poverty line than in 1993, since NAFTA. CAFTA has failed--the Central American Free Trade Agreement--to create the thriving middle class in Central America that proponents promised.

The Colombia Free Trade Agreement, as written, will produce the same results: more poverty abroad, more lost U.S. jobs, more small businesses in this country closing up shop.

The first President Bush said each billion dollars--listen to this-- each billion dollars of our trade surplus or deficit translates into 13,000 jobs. A billion-dollar trade surplus creates 13,000 jobs. A billion-dollar trade deficit costs 13,000 jobs. That is what the first President Bush said. That was back when the trade deficit was $20 billion, $30 billion, $40 billion. Again, think about that: 13,000 jobs for a billion-dollar trade deficit or surplus.

Today, the trade deficit exceeds $800 billion. Just do the math. The cost in jobs of this enormous increase in our trade deficit is staggering.

It is not surprising that voters in my State see bad trade deals as a major factor in the destruction of our manufacturing base. They know our economy and they know their interests are undermined by that exploding trade deficit. They know Ohio's problems are Colorado's problems and Montana's problems and Massachusetts' problems. They know for the past three decades the historical link between rising productivity and rising wages has been severed.

For most of my life--well, half of my life; the first 25 or 30 years of my life--in this country, when workers were more productive, their wages went up. If I had a chart, you could see that. We could map productivity, and we could map wages. In this country, for decades and decades and decades, this created the middle class. This is what made us a successful economy and a successful democratic capitalist country--that productivity and wages would almost be parallel.

Today, particularly in the last decade, that connection has absolutely been severed. That has been the problem in many ways with our economy. Wages have been flat, profits have been up, executive salaries have exploded, and the middle class has struggled mightily.

Our country has entered a period where income inequality is at the highest level in 70 years. Now is the time to be asking the right questions. It is time to end the name calling and have a real debate about trade. We are at a critical juncture in our Nation's history. It serves both sides of the trade debate to remember that U.S. trade policy is a tool. It is not a fairy godmother. It should not be used to temporarily pump up well-connected industries--as trade policy often is; hence, all the protections--nor should it be used to tamp down competitive forces.

Our trade policy must promote competition, build on the progress our Nation has made, and promote our Nation's economic and strategic objectives rather than flouting them.

Ultimately, it will be ingenuity and sweat equity--we know that--that enables our country to thrive in the global marketplace. Like every country, we will have to work harder and smarter to win every contract and every sale. But it is the role of governments to ensure the rules for that contest are fair and that the interests of everyone--not just those we protect in our trade agreements--to ensure that everyone has a stake and everyone is served by our trade policy.

Our Government has not done that. Our trade deficit has ballooned, our manufacturing sector is faltering, and real wages are falling. The last thing we need is more business as usual. No more NAFTAs, no more CAFTAs, no more Colombia trade agreements. Business as usual has not worked. The status quo is not working. Again, 15\1/2\ years ago, the trade deficit was $38 billion; today, it is $800 billion.

We need to decide what our economic goals will be and how we achieve them. If we do not, we will wake up to find we have left a sorry legacy to our Nation, to our communities, and to our children.

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

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Hatch, for his leadership on this issue and on so many other health issues. He has had a terrific career in public service, especially on public health issues such as MRSA, and we are all appreciative of that all over the country.

In the last year, as we know, we have seen news reports about outbreaks around the country of a dangerous infection commonly referred to, as Senator Hatch said, by the acronym MRSA. MRSA is a strain of staph infection that is resistant to penicillin and related antibiotics. While MRSA was previously thought to occur only in hospital settings--bad enough--Americans have begun to contract it in schools and communities.

Last year, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that MRSA infections occur in approximately 94,000 people each year and are associated with approximately 19,000 deaths. Think about that. On September 11, 3,000-plus people were killed in New York, Washington, DC, and in Pennsylvania. Tens of thousands of people die in car accidents. We are talking about 19,000 deaths from MRSA infections, not to mention other kinds of related deaths from similar infections.

That article in the Journal of the American Medical Association is a wake-up call that we must not ignore.

In my State of Ohio, there were 12 outbreaks of MRSA last year alone. Ohioans contracted MRSA in health care settings, in the workplace, on sports teams, and in corrections facilities. The head of the Centers for Disease Control told me on the phone several months ago that high school students sharing towels or getting burns from artificial turf at football practice or coming into the gym and sharing a towel that might have been used the day before that wasn't washed--some students contracted MRSA from that. It is fairly rare that way, but it happens. Most students recover fine from it, but occasionally some do not.

MRSA outbreaks took place in counties across the State of Ohio, including Franklin, Gallia, Madison, Cuyahoga, Allen, Portage, Vinton, Fairfield, and Miami. If you look at a map of Ohio, outbreaks happened in all sections of our State.

Robert Totsch died in his hometown of Coshocton, a community in southeast Ohio, after contracting a hospital-acquired MRSA infection. Here is what happened to him. He was a kind and loving husband, father of two and proud grandfather of five. He was a retired guidance counselor, a Korean war Navy veteran who had served his country during that war. In September of 2006, Robert Totsch suffered a heart attack and needed triple bypass surgery. Once the procedure was over, his doctors told him the surgery couldn't have gone better. They said Robert would be home by the following Saturday in time to watch his alma mater Ohio State playing football on his own TV in his own house.

But Robert had contracted a surgical site MRSA infection that spread to his blood stream. The surgeon told him ``5 or 6 others in the intensive care unit had MRSA.'' Robert was given numerous antibiotics, including an antibiotic of last resort. While he was in the ICU on life support, Robert and his wife celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary.

Robert should have gone home. While he went into the hospital for a heart condition, it was not his heart problems that took his life. Robert's wife and children miss him every day and are still recovering from watching him suffer during those last days of life.

This story is painful, especially because we know this infection, and the deaths that have resulted from it, don't have to happen. MRSA outbreaks are part of the larger problem of what we lay people call ``superbugs'' that are resistant to antibiotics, which are the cornerstone of modern medicine, but they are under siege.

Over time, fueled by antibiotic misuse and overuse in farm animals and human beings, bacteria mutate to develop resistance to those antibiotics.

In response to this health care crisis, Senator Hatch and I introduced the Strategies to Address Antimicrobial Resistance Act, also known as the STAAR Act. That bill is meant to reinvigorate efforts to combat the so-called superbugs--efforts that accelerated in the late 1990s, and then stalled.

We need to respond more quickly to this problem because it will only grow with time, reversing years of progress in the fight against debilitating and deadly illness.

We know what antibiotics have done to save lives since the discovery of penicillin. Our bill will launch a coordinated effort to prevent outbreaks of MRSA and other dangerous drug-resistant infections. It would jumpstart research on the superbugs and explore strategies to ensure a robust pipeline for new antibiotic drugs.

Drug-resistant bacteria sets back the clock on medical progress. It costs more and, more importantly, it costs lives. No one should go into a hospital for one problem with their health and leave with another--or not leave at all.

We need to take antibiotic resistance seriously and fight it with as much passion as we fight any potential killer.

I thank Senator Hatch for his leadership on this issue and for introducing this bill with me. I look forward to working with him to help get it passed.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, yesterday, at the James Cancer Hospital at Ohio State University in Columbus, OH, our State capital, I announced legislation to eliminate needless barriers to cancer research.

I was joined by Dr. William Carson, by Dr. James Thomas, by patients, and by nurses, who do the research and the clinical care for patients during these clinical trials. Many have worked on this issue with Congresswoman Deborah Pryce, a Congressional Republican.

Merle Farnsworth, a lymphoma patient from Beverly, OH, shared an emotional story about cancer clinical trials meaning hope--and possibly a lifesaving cure--for him and millions of patients like him.

The goal of both the House and Senate versions of this legislation is simple: to finally identify cures for this merciless killer.

So many of us have been touched by cancer. We all know--all of us, I guess, in this room right now--someone with cancer and have lost someone to cancer or we know someone living with cancer.

Focusing on cancer yesterday at James Cancer Hospital reminded me of what is at stake when we are fighting for broader access to health care. We are fighting to promote and enable early detection of childhood cancers, such as Hodgkin's Disease, leukemia, and bone cancer, and to ensure that every woman can receive mammograms and pap tests.

We are fighting to diagnose cancers as soon as possible, which is the key to saving lives. We recognize everyone should be able to get these preventive measures, regardless of where they live or how much they earn.

We recognize a woman with breast cancer without insurance is 40 percent more likely to die than a woman with breast cancer with insurance.

We need a health care system that is affordable and inclusive, where insurance companies follow through on providing coverage to those who need it.

No American should be driven into bankruptcy by a catastrophic illness such as cancer. And no one should be denied access to clinical trials because insurance companies all too often try to drop them from coverage.

Last year, Sheryl Freeman, a retired schoolteacher, and her husband Craig from Dayton visited my office in Washington. Sheryl had multiple myeloma. Sheryl and Craig brought to my attention the problems they were having with their insurance company.

Sheryl was a retired schoolteacher and was covered under Craig's insurance plan. Craig has been a Federal employee for 20 years. When Sheryl enrolled in a clinical trial to save her life, her insurance company would not cover the routine costs of her care. If she had not enrolled in the clinical trial, they would have covered the costs of her care.

She enrolled in the clinical trial. The insurance company, for all intents and purposes, dropped her from providing routine care for her.

In addition to her clinical trial in Columbus, Sheryl needed to visit her oncologist in Dayton, about 1 hour 45 minutes away, at least once a week for standard cancer monitoring, which included blood tests and scans. But her insurance company would not cover these services if she enrolled in a clinical trial.

Sheryl wanted to take part in a clinical trial because she hoped it would help her, that it might save her life, give her more time, and further cancer research. But rather than devoting her energy toward combating cancer and participating in a clinical trial, Sheryl spent the last months of her life haggling with her insurance company. The delays and the denials from her insurance company probably affected her treatment and her survival. Sheryl died on December 9, 2007.

The story could have ended differently. Sheryl and Craig should not have had to sacrifice their precious time together trying to get the care she deserved, the care she paid for when she signed up for health insurance. People invest in insurance when they are healthy so they have financial protection when they are sick. It is meant to cover the costs of unanticipated health care needs.

Whether a coverage exclusion such as this one, which denies payment for unanticipated health care needs, is written into an insurance contract, it is still a scam.

Unfortunately, Sheryl and Craig are not alone. This is happening across Ohio. It is happening in the Presiding Officer's State of New Jersey, and it is happening in all 50 States. Some 20 percent of cancer patients who attempt to enroll in a clinical trial face the same problem with their insurance companies.

It is because of stories such as these I am introducing the Access to Cancer Clinical Trials Act this week. Similar legislation is on its way to getting passed in the Ohio State Legislature. The Governor plans to sign that bill immediately.

My bill and Congresswoman Pryce's bill in the House ensures this protection nationally. The bill simply obligates health plans to pay for routine care costs when a cancer patient enrolls in a clinical trial, something, frankly, we should not have to tell the insurance companies to do. But when they drop coverage for people who signed up for a clinical trial, it is what we have to do.

These are costs, as I said, that would normally be covered if a cancer patient were not participating in a clinical trial.

The legislation is specific in its definition of routine care costs and follows the Medicare definition.

The bill will ensure that cancer patients and their caregivers can use their valuable time together to fight the disease instead of the redtape of insurance companies.

In order to fight cancer and make progress, we need to further scientific advancement, not create barriers for patients who want to participate in lifesaving research.

I am grateful to Merle Farnsworth for yesterday so courageously and passionately sharing his story with us and the public. I am grateful to the nurses who do their clinical care and practice their research for these patients in these clinical trials. I am grateful to Sheryl and Craig for their courage in sharing their story. Their two children joined us yesterday in bringing this issue to my attention.

Sheryl was already very sick when she visited Washington, DC, and I imagine it was not easy for her to be traveling, but she did. She saw how important this issue was. I will keep the Freemans in mind as I advocate to get this bill passed. I will work hard on this legislation so no one has to go through the kind of experience the Freemans had and the kind of experience Mr. Farnsworth had.

Instead of fighting their cancer, too many Americans are forced to fight their insurance company in the late

stages of their disease. That has to stop. That is why this legislation is so very important.

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

Madam President, I can't quite believe what I just heard. Because Democrats in 2006 said we need a different energy policy than the White House, a President and Vice President who both come out of the oil industry, both top energy executives, where much of the funding for the President's party comes from the oil industry, and in 2006, the Democrats said the Congress betrayed the American people because they let the oil industry write the energy bill, now my friend from Florida is saying it is the Democrats' fault that gas prices are through the roof.

One of the best friends of the President was the CEO of Enron, a major funder to the President, close friend of the President who had a personal nickname, and Enron had gamed the system through speculating and speculating. It cost consumers, especially on the west coast, hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars as people raked off profits from their speculating. We are seeing the same kinds of things. I don't know if they are the President's friends doing it anymore, but I know there are people who have gamed the system. That is the reason, with no major international incident in the last 2 years, no major outage of a refinery or fire of a refinery or pipeline disruption, that prices have spiked so much.

It is clear that a Justice Department working for the President of the United States, that is not beholden to the oil industry, might actually take some action on price fixing and recommend an excess profits tax--all the kinds of things we could be doing in this body and that the executive could do. But in this body, we have seen filibusters.

Every time we try to do something on oil prices, every time we try to do something on long-term alternative energy, the Republicans filibuster. They have filibustered more than 60 times. It is approaching 70. I am not sure of the number; it is hard to keep up. They have filibustered more times already in this congressional session than they did in any 2-year session in history by a lot, and they are continuing to do it.

We would love to sit down with my friend on the other side of the aisle and work on real energy legislation and wean this body and wean the White House from their addiction to oil company campaign dollars, and help wean the American people from our addiction to foreign oil. We would love to work on that.

I introduced legislation yesterday that will help to jump-start the green energy industry in this country. It is clear we need to do a lot of that. But the American public is tired of finger pointing. It is time this Congress did more on energy, and that the Republicans, instead of filibustering--there are 51 Democrats in this body; we need 60 votes to do anything because of the filibuster--instead of the Republicans holding together and blocking things, instead of filibustering, let us work together on energy issues and not have the oil companies dictate to this body, as they did for year after year after year.

When I was in the House of Representatives, the oil companies dictated to the House of Representatives leadership, and everybody in those days in the majority party--which was the Republicans then--went along with their leaders on writing an energy bill that had $18 billion of subsidies and giveaways and tax breaks to the oil industry. Yet they are the most profitable industry in America year after year after year.

Something gives there. It is time for something very different. I want to work together. The finger pointing should end. Let's sit down and do this right, but don't block us to do things that will help stabilize gas prices now and help to bring them down over the short and medium term and long term to come up with a real energy policy so we are not relying on--as my friend Senator Martinez said--not relying on Venezuela and Saudi Arabia and countries that are not so friendly to us.

Madam President, earlier this week, I spoke on the Senate floor about Cover the Uninsured Week and a bill I was introducing that would increase access to health coverage for small businesses and self- employed individuals--a group we all too often forget about around here. Today I am formally introducing the Small Business Empowerment Act. I wish to discuss this bill in a bit more depth.

First, why is it necessary?

It is necessary because 82 percent--82 percent--of the uninsured work for a living. They have jobs. The overwhelming majority work in small companies--companies with 2 people, 5 people, 20 people--or they are self-employed.

In Ohio, my State--whether you are in Steubenville or Lima, whether you are in Kent or Chillicothe--99 percent of firms with more than 50 workers sponsor health insurance. So if you are at a relatively midsized or larger company, you have 50 or more workers, 99 percent of those firms offer some kind of fairly decent insurance for their employees. That is for companies above 50 employees.

For companies under 50 employees, only 44 percent of those firms do. Many of them are self-employed. Many of them only have 5 or 10 or 15 employees. Small employers who do offer coverage--and most of them absolutely try to--I have talked to small businesspeople from Springfield to Zanesville, from Bellaire to Delphos, and I hear repeatedly from small businesses they want to insure their employees, but it is getting harder and harder and harder. According to the well- respected RAND Corporation--a nonpartisan group that dispassionately analyzes these kinds of things--small businesses saw the economic burden of health insurance rise by 30 percent between 2000 and 2005. And it is getting worse.

The situation is even worse for the self-employed, who must contend with staggeringly high premiums for individual coverage--they don't get any group-rate break--if they can find an insurer even willing to cover them.

In these small pools, if you have 3 employees or 8 employees or you are self-employed, and there is anybody in this small pool of 1 or 20 who has some major preexisting condition, you probably cannot get insurance at all.

In the meantime, health insurers have been living large, their profits increasing by more than a third over the last 5 years--not much different from the oil industry, where the public recoils from staggeringly high gas prices, and the oil industry is making record high profits. The public--particularly small business--is recoiling from higher health insurance premiums and higher copays and deductibles. Yet health insurance companies are doing better and better.

Middle-class families are shouldering the burden of skyrocketing gas prices and ballooning food prices, even as the equity in their homes erodes and the cost of putting their children through college explodes.

It would be ideal if they could afford to pay a king's ransom for health insurance. They cannot. And they should not have to.

With those realities staring us in the face, inaction from this body is the same as indifference.

My legislation attacks the issue of health coverage access from several different directions.

To ensure widespread access, the bill would establish a national insurance pool modeled after the successful Federal Employees Health Benefits program. The FEHB, Federal Employees Health Benefits program, which enables enrollees to choose from a variety of health plans, with rates and benefits negotiated by the Federal Office of Personnel Management, has served Members of Congress and hundreds of thousands of Federal employees well for many years now.

So understand, there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Federal employees--whether they work in the Celebrezze Building in Cleveland, whether they work in the Office of Management and Budget in Washington, whether they work in Bethesda for the National Institutes of Health, whether they work at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base; any of these Federal jobs--Federal employees are in a huge pool that negotiates price. So it obviously works in a way that keeps rates in check.

Under my bill, an independent contractor would manage a program that looks like FEHB, with a few modifications to accommodate the market segment it would serve. A few of those modifications are designed to hold down costs.

The bill would establish a reinsurance program to pay claims that fall between $5,000 and $75,000. That is where small business gets hit the hardest. When 1 or 2 or 3 employees, in a company of 50 or 40 or 30 or 100, get hit with a huge bill of hundreds of thousands of dollars, it affects the entire pool, and it affects everyone's premium and, in many cases, it makes insurance for the small business employer simply out of reach.

This bill establishes a reinsurance program to pay claims that fall between $5,000 and $75,000. This approach minimizes premium spikes and it makes coverage affordable for companies regardless of the age and the health of their employees.

The bill establishes what is called a loss-ratio standard for insurers. This means that insurers would be required to spend most of their premium income on claims, and hold down their administrative costs. We know what happens with small employers: the administrative costs the insurance companies take are typically huge and have a major impact on the per-employee cost of health insurance.

The bill would identify and apply strategies to ensure that providers employ ``best practices'' in health care, which means they are providing the right care at the right time in the right amount.

Finally, the bill would target price gouging by drug manufacturers and manufacturers of other medical products, including medical devices.

Price gouging occurs in U.S. health care when a company exploits American consumers by charging them dramatically higher prices than consumers in other wealthy nations.

Why are we paying so much more for prescription drugs in this country than the Canadians pay, when the Canadians often are buying drugs manufactured in the United States? It is the same drug, same brand name, same packaging, same dosage. Yet they are paying in Canada sometimes half as much.

In fact, for years, I used to take--when I was in the House of Representatives--busloads of constituents to Canada, about 2, 2\1/2\ hours away from Lorain, OH, where I lived, to buy prescription drugs at a pharmacy in Ontario. The same drug, same dosage--everything was the same, except for the price.

Other modifications in the bill are designed to ensure that health coverage is nondiscriminatory. Think about it this way: If your next- door neighbor develops a mental illness such as clinical depression, and you develop a medical illness such as heart disease, why should your next-door neighbor be denied health benefits that you get because that is a mental illness versus a physical illness? We both have paid premiums. Your next-door neighbor and you have both paid premiums to cover your health care costs. You both need health care. Why is one condition--the condition of heart disease--more worthy of coverage than the condition of clinical depression?

My bill charges a group representing providers, businesses, consumers, economists, and health policy experts with rethinking health care coverage to eliminate arbitrary differences in the coverage of equally disruptive, disabling, or dangerous health conditions.

The bottom line is this: We have an opportunity to expand access to health coverage in a way that achieves fundamental goals.

One, we reach populations who cannot find a home in the current insurance system because they are small businesses, typically, or self employed.

We stand up for American consumers who are paying absolutely ridiculous prices in many cases for essential health care.

We demand spending discipline on the part of insurers. They have chosen to play a pivotal role in the health of our Nation. They can live with reasonable limits on their administrative costs, as their profits go up and their executive salaries are in the stratosphere.

We can clean up duplication and random variation in the delivery of health care services.

We can end arbitrary coverage rules that turn health protection into a health care crapshoot.

For the sake of small employers, for the sake of their employees, for the sake of self-employed entrepreneurs--whom we need so desperately in this country to compete globally--and for the sake of every American who did not request, did not sign up for a particular health problem, and should not be penalized for having it, I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will support my legislation.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I yield the floor. I suggest 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 Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.