Floor Statements

Mr. President, energy independence is no longer an option for our Nation. It is an imperative. The clock is ticking. If we do not break the ties, our children and grandchildren will have to clean up our mess. It is not too late.

Today I introduced legislation to help U.S. companies and U.S. workers chart a new course. This is an energy bill. It is a jobs bill. It is an environment bill. It will help companies turn green energy research into green energy products. It will help workers build careers around green energy development and production. It will help our Nation break free of foreign oil and grow our economy by growing green energy. It is an important step that, along with comprehensive climate change legislation, will put our country on a path to energy independence.

While the first oil well in the United States was in the Presiding Officer's State of Pennsylvania, just a year later oil was being produced in Ohio. Before long, derricks dotted the landscape in every corner of our State. My bill begins to address what Ohio and Pennsylvania have known for years about energy.

The history of my State is also rich in coal. Frontiersmen discovered large deposits of coal in Tuscarawas County in the mid-1700s, long before Ohio became a State. Today, coal power is more than 90 percent of Ohio's electricity production.

Oil and coal powered this Nation through two World Wars. They helped

the United States win the Cold War. And they made America the world's largest economy. But today our economic future depends on our ability to move toward alternative energy development. Green energy just will not restore our energy independence, it will secure our global leadership.

In my 15 months in the Senate, I have held nearly 100 roundtables across Ohio learning about Ohio's capabilities and potential in leading the way in the alternative energy industry. From Ralph Dahl's farm in northwest Montgomery County and the technology he has employed, to high-tech companies in Cleveland looking for financing but fearing the so-called valley of death, to eager entrepreneurs in Athens who are installing solar panels and wind turbines all over their part of the State, to the work of Stark State on fuel cells. But we haven't gone nearly far enough. It is only the beginning.

The Germans have long supported the development of solar power, and today they lead the world in that technology. Just last week, China announced plans to set up trade protection laws, not to increase wind energy in China but to corner the market on wind-energy-related products.

While we are debating whether to punch more holes in the ground to drill for oil, the rest of the world is about to pass us by. But it is not too late. American ingenuity and innovation can and will give our Nation an edge over the competition. My bill creates an investment corporation for that purpose lead by the best and brightest from the business, labor, and environmental worlds. It will be charged with supporting the development and commercialization of new energy products.

Great ideas are being left on the drawing board these days or, worse yet, getting produced overseas. Investments will be aimed with this legislation at communities with high levels of unemployment, with excess manufacturing capacity, and with brownfield industrial cleanup sites--communities with enormous potential and significant needs. My State, as is Pennsylvania, is dotted with dozens of those communities.

Our green energy manufacturing future should build on our great manufacturing past, revitalizing flagging industries, and reenergizing manufacturing hubs.

This bill creates the Green Redevelopment Opportunity and Workforce Program that provides grants to companies a little further from commercialization than those that receive loans in the Green Markets Program.

These companies have green energy ideas that are a few years away from the market. Without these grants, they would never make it into production.

We cannot pick, and we should not pick, winners in the fight for the future of green energy, so we must explore as many ideas and inventions that get to the market as possible.

My bill would also establish grant money for pilot programs for green energy communities, colleges, and National Guard bases even. These pilot programs will serve as important resources for business interested in commercializing green technologies, as well as models for other communities that are trying to transition their economies to green energy.

The corporation will run a green energy internship and apprenticeship program that will help innovate green energy companies, hire new talent, and help students earn valuable industry experience in this new industry as it begins to take off.

My bill establishes a Green Energy Efficiency Grant Program that is a dollar-for-dollar match for energy producers, including municipal power companies and rural electric co-ops.

This provision helps by ending the conflict that energy producers often face with protecting the environment and growing their businesses. These energy producers try to encourage people to conserve, but at the same time they are saying don't buy our product, which obviously is not a good business decision. This provision in this legislation will help answer that.

By meeting these companies halfway, by matching their investment in energy efficiency, the Government cannot do it all, but it can help these responsible companies do right by the consumers and the environment.

Today, most of Ohio's oil wells are dry, coal production is literally only half what it was in 1970, and Ohio's manufacturing centers from Steubenville to Lima, from Ravenna to Springfield, from Xenia to Findlay, are struggling to remain competitive. Our Nation's green future is more than using green energy or living in green houses or putting in green light bulbs. All those things are good, but we must build the green energy and its components in the United States. We know green energy is inevitable, but importing green energy from China and Germany, like we do today with oil from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, need not be inevitable, and it is not in our Nation's best interests. We need to end our foreign energy dependence, whether it is today, too much with Saudi Arabia, or in the future, too much with Germany.

The next green energy company that can change the world is out there waiting to happen. It could be the National Composite Center in Dayton, could be the cutting-edge fuel cell research ongoing in Mount Vernon,

Mr. 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.

I will formally introduce the Small Business Empowerment Act today, and I would like to discuss the bill in a bit more depth.

First, why is it necessary?

It is necessary because 82 percent of the uninsured are workers, and the overwhelming majority work in small firms.

In Ohio, 99 percent of firms with more than 50 workers sponsor health coverage. About 44 percent of firms with less than 50 do.

And small employers that do offer coverage are struggling under the weight of it. According to the well-respected Rand Corporation, small businesses saw the economic burden of health insurance rise by 30 percent between 2000 and 2005.

The situation is even worse for the self-employed, who must contend with staggeringly high premiums for individual coverage, if, that is, they can find an insurer willing to cover them.

In the meantime, health insurers have been living large, their profits increasing by more than a third over the last 5 years. That's not revenue, it's profits.

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 also afford to pay a king's ransom for health insurance.

They can't. They shouldn't have to.

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

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

To ensure widespread access, the bill would establish a national insurance pool modeled after the successful Federal Employees Health Benefits program.

FEHB, which enables enrollees to choose from a variety of health plans whose rates and benefits are negotiated by the federal Office of Personnel Management, has served members of Congress and federal employees well for many years now.

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. This approach minimizes premium spikes and makes coverage affordable for companies regardless of the age and health of their employees.

The bill would also establish what is called a ``loss-ratio'' standard for insurers. Basically this means that insurers would be required to spend most of their premium income on claims, and hold down their administrative costs.

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

Finally, the bill would target ``price-gouging'' by drug manufacturers and other manufacturers of medical products. 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.

Other modifications are designed to ensure that health coverage is non-discriminatory.

Think about it: If you develop a mental illness like clinical depression and I develop a medical illness like heart disease, why should you be denied health benefits while I receive them? We both have paid premiums to cover health care costs and we both need health care. Why is my condition more worthy of coverage than yours?

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 advances fundamental goals:

We can reach populations who can't find a home in the current insurance system.

We stand up for American consumers who are paying ridiculous prices for essential health care.

We can 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.

We can clean up duplication and random variation in the delivery of health care services; and we can end arbitrary coverage rules that turn health protection into a health care crapshoot.

For the sake of small employers and their employees, for the sake of self-employed entrepreneurs, and for the sake of every American who didn't request a particular health problem and shouldn't be penalized for having it, I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will support my bill.

Mr. President, energy independence is no longer an option for our Nation. It is an imperative. The clock is ticking. If we do not break the ties, our children and grandchildren will have to clean up our mess. It is not too late.

Today I introduced legislation to help U.S. companies and U.S. workers chart a new course. This is an energy bill. It is a jobs bill. It is an environment bill. It will help companies turn green energy research into green energy products. It will help workers build careers around green energy development and production. It will help our Nation break free of foreign oil and grow our economy by growing green energy. It is an important step that, along with comprehensive climate change legislation, will put our country on a path to energy independence.

While the first oil well in the United States was in the Presiding Officer's State of Pennsylvania, just a year later oil was being produced in Ohio. Before long, derricks dotted the landscape in every corner of our State. My bill begins to address what Ohio and Pennsylvania have known for years about energy.

The history of my State is also rich in coal. Frontiersmen discovered large deposits of coal in Tuscarawas County in the mid-1700s, long before Ohio became a State. Today, coal power is more than 90 percent of Ohio's electricity production.

Oil and coal powered this Nation through two World Wars. They helped

the United States win the Cold War. And they made America the world's largest economy. But today our economic future depends on our ability to move toward alternative energy development. Green energy just will not restore our energy independence, it will secure our global leadership.

In my 15 months in the Senate, I have held nearly 100 roundtables across Ohio learning about Ohio's capabilities and potential in leading the way in the alternative energy industry. From Ralph Dahl's farm in northwest Montgomery County and the technology he has employed, to high-tech companies in Cleveland looking for financing but fearing the so-called valley of death, to eager entrepreneurs in Athens who are installing solar panels and wind turbines all over their part of the State, to the work of Stark State on fuel cells. But we haven't gone nearly far enough. It is only the beginning.

The Germans have long supported the development of solar power, and today they lead the world in that technology. Just last week, China announced plans to set up trade protection laws, not to increase wind energy in China but to corner the market on wind-energy-related products.

While we are debating whether to punch more holes in the ground to drill for oil, the rest of the world is about to pass us by. But it is not too late. American ingenuity and innovation can and will give our Nation an edge over the competition. My bill creates an investment corporation for that purpose lead by the best and brightest from the business, labor, and environmental worlds. It will be charged with supporting the development and commercialization of new energy products.

Great ideas are being left on the drawing board these days or, worse yet, getting produced overseas. Investments will be aimed with this legislation at communities with high levels of unemployment, with excess manufacturing capacity, and with brownfield industrial cleanup sites--communities with enormous potential and significant needs. My State, as is Pennsylvania, is dotted with dozens of those communities.

Our green energy manufacturing future should build on our great manufacturing past, revitalizing flagging industries, and reenergizing manufacturing hubs.

This bill creates the Green Redevelopment Opportunity and Workforce Program that provides grants to companies a little further from commercialization than those that receive loans in the Green Markets Program.

These companies have green energy ideas that are a few years away from the market. Without these grants, they would never make it into production.

We cannot pick, and we should not pick, winners in the fight for the future of green energy, so we must explore as many ideas and inventions that get to the market as possible.

My bill would also establish grant money for pilot programs for green energy communities, colleges, and National Guard bases even. These pilot programs will serve as important resources for business interested in commercializing green technologies, as well as models for other communities that are trying to transition their economies to green energy.

The corporation will run a green energy internship and apprenticeship program that will help innovate green energy companies, hire new talent, and help students earn valuable industry experience in this new industry as it begins to take off.

My bill establishes a Green Energy Efficiency Grant Program that is a dollar-for-dollar match for energy producers, including municipal power companies and rural electric co-ops.

This provision helps by ending the conflict that energy producers often face with protecting the environment and growing their businesses. These energy producers try to encourage people to conserve, but at the same time they are saying don't buy our product, which obviously is not a good business decision. This provision in this legislation will help answer that.

By meeting these companies halfway, by matching their investment in energy efficiency, the Government cannot do it all, but it can help these responsible companies do right by the consumers and the environment.

Today, most of Ohio's oil wells are dry, coal production is literally only half what it was in 1970, and Ohio's manufacturing centers from Steubenville to Lima, from Ravenna to Springfield, from Xenia to Findlay, are struggling to remain competitive. Our Nation's green future is more than using green energy or living in green houses or putting in green light bulbs. All those things are good, but we must build the green energy and its components in the United States. We know green energy is inevitable, but importing green energy from China and Germany, like we do today with oil from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, need not be inevitable, and it is not in our Nation's best interests. We need to end our foreign energy dependence, whether it is today, too much with Saudi Arabia, or in the future, too much with Germany.

The next green energy company that can change the world is out there waiting to happen. It could be the National Composite Center in Dayton, could be the cutting-edge fuel cell research ongoing in Mount Vernon,

Mr. 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.

I will formally introduce the Small Business Empowerment Act today, and I would like to discuss the bill in a bit more depth.

First, why is it necessary?

It is necessary because 82 percent of the uninsured are workers, and the overwhelming majority work in small firms.

In Ohio, 99 percent of firms with more than 50 workers sponsor health coverage. About 44 percent of firms with less than 50 do.

And small employers that do offer coverage are struggling under the weight of it. According to the well-respected Rand Corporation, small businesses saw the economic burden of health insurance rise by 30 percent between 2000 and 2005.

The situation is even worse for the self-employed, who must contend with staggeringly high premiums for individual coverage, if, that is, they can find an insurer willing to cover them.

In the meantime, health insurers have been living large, their profits increasing by more than a third over the last 5 years. That's not revenue, it's profits.

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 also afford to pay a king's ransom for health insurance.

They can't. They shouldn't have to.

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

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

To ensure widespread access, the bill would establish a national insurance pool modeled after the successful Federal Employees Health Benefits program.

FEHB, which enables enrollees to choose from a variety of health plans whose rates and benefits are negotiated by the federal Office of Personnel Management, has served members of Congress and federal employees well for many years now.

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. This approach minimizes premium spikes and makes coverage affordable for companies regardless of the age and health of their employees.

The bill would also establish what is called a ``loss-ratio'' standard for insurers. Basically this means that insurers would be required to spend most of their premium income on claims, and hold down their administrative costs.

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

Finally, the bill would target ``price-gouging'' by drug manufacturers and other manufacturers of medical products. 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.

Other modifications are designed to ensure that health coverage is non-discriminatory.

Think about it: If you develop a mental illness like clinical depression and I develop a medical illness like heart disease, why should you be denied health benefits while I receive them? We both have paid premiums to cover health care costs and we both need health care. Why is my condition more worthy of coverage than yours?

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 advances fundamental goals:

We can reach populations who can't find a home in the current insurance system.

We stand up for American consumers who are paying ridiculous prices for essential health care.

We can 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.

We can clean up duplication and random variation in the delivery of health care services; and we can end arbitrary coverage rules that turn health protection into a health care crapshoot.

For the sake of small employers and their employees, for the sake of self-employed entrepreneurs, and for the sake of every American who didn't request a particular health problem and shouldn't be penalized for having it, I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will support my bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 723, S. 1760.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the substitute be agreed to; the bill as amended, be read a third time; the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate; and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 715, S. Res 511.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 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 any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the adjournment of the Senate, the majority leader be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, Thursday, May 1; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, there then be a period of morning business for up to 1 hour with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the second half; and following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 2881, the FAA reauthorization bill.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of the majority leader.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this week is the sixth annual Cover the Uninsured Week. Community organizations and foundations around the country will be hosting events to highlight the need for health reform. Across the Nation, we all know this: 47 million people lack health insurance. In my State of Ohio, 1.2 million people, 11 percent of the population, are uninsured.

It is no different in the Presiding Officer's State of Pennsylvania. But that even one American lacks health coverage is a national embarrassment. We are the wealthiest Nation in the world. We spend $2.38 trillion a year, $2.3 trillion a year in health care, but we cannot make sure that every American has health care coverage? Of course we can.

Every other industrialized nation on this Earth ensures access to coverage. We in this body have chosen not to. Last year Congress tried to provide health coverage to millions more low-income children. The House and Senate both passed bills twice to provide $35 billion over 5 years in additional funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Plan. It was the biggest bipartisan initiative to expand health care coverage in years. Twice--not once but twice--the President vetoed that legislation. We spend more than $3 billion every week in the war in Iraq. The President vetoed legislation spending $7 billion a year to insure 4 million children; $3 billion a week every week in Iraq; the President vetoed $7 billion a year to insure 4 million children. These are the sons and daughters of working parents; sons and daughters of parents in Toledo, in Mansfield, in Zanesville, who are working hard and playing by the rules.

Think about this: Since I have begun to speak a few moments ago, we have, in Iraq, spent $650,000. Yesterday in Iraq we spent $400 million. Last week in Iraq we spent $3 billion. Again, the President vetoed legislation $7 billion a year for 4 million children. It was disappointing to us as advocates for children's health insurance. But mostly it was disappointing to the parents of children around my State, in Cincinnati, from Ashtabula, from Marietta to Springfield, to Lima, parents around Ohio and around the country who need health insurance for their children.

Not only do many low-income children live without health insurance, but families whose breadwinners are self-employed or who work for small businesses struggle to get health insurance too, families such as the Coltmans of Conneaut, OH, a community in the northeast corner right across the line from Pennsylvania. The Coltmans are a large family with five children and two hard-working parents. Last year their 7-year-old son Caleb was diagnosed with leukemia. The doctors are optimistic, but treatment is wildly expensive. Last year, Kenna Coltman, Caleb's mother, left her job to work for her family business, a neighborhood grocery store. Unfortunately, this meant she had to search for new health insurance. After a long search for private insurance, the Coltmans found an affordable plan, but it was not scheduled to go into effect until August. By that time, Caleb had been diagnosed with leukemia, which was a deal breaker for the private insurer. Uninsured, facing a catastrophic illness, a parent's worst nightmare, the Coltmans had run out of options.

Kenna, the mother, a college-educated daughter herself of two Conneaut natives, recounted the experience this way.

She said: If there was absolutely any other way to get our son the care and medication he needs without totally impoverishing our family, we would do it.

In a country like ours, families should not have to worry about being thrown into abject poverty to pay for health insurance. Families want to do the right thing. They want to insure their children. They work hard, they play by the rules. But insurance is too often out of reach.

That is why today I am introducing a bill to make health insurance more viable for workers employed by small businesses. The Small Business Empowerment Act would create an insurance program for small businesses and self-employed Americans. This program is modeled after the excellent coverage that is provided to Federal workers and to Members of the House and Senate.

To keep premiums affordable, the Department of Health and Human Services would create a reinsurance mechanism to help cover high-cost enrollees. The legislation would establish a Federal commission to tackle the toughest health policy issues: how to rein in health care spending without compromising health care quality and access; how to craft an insurance package that treats all enrollees equally, regardless of what type of health care they need, which is essential; how to combat price gouging by the drug industry, the medical device industry, and the insurance industry. In other words, how to ensure our health care system is sustainable and equitable, efficient and effective. The bill was introduced to help families such as the Coltmans.

Thankfully, Caleb's current prognosis is good, and the family business seems to be turning the corner. His treatment was covered by Ohio's Medicaid I Program, another program that is crucial to providing coverage to families who are struggling; another program that is under attack by this administration as it tries to change the rules and as it cuts billions of dollars from the program.

This week and every week we need to work to keep Medicaid strong, to realize the expansion of CHIP for which we fought so hard, and to pass legislation for the self-employed and workers in small businesses. The small employer health insurance bill provides more options so that the rest of the Coltman family, including Caleb's parents, can access health insurance too. I don't want Caleb's parents in Conneaut, OH, to live in fear when their children fall down or get in an accident or catch the flu or have an allergic reaction to something they ate. They have enough on their plate already.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to protect Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program and to pass this bill.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes, to be followed for 10 minutes by Senator Klobuchar, as in morning business and for it to count postcloture.

Madam President, America's workforce is facing immense challenges. Our country has lost 230,000 jobs in the first 3 months of 2008. Many of those jobs are in the Presiding Officer's State of Michigan and my State of Ohio. The national unemployment rate has gone to 5.1 percent. In Ohio, unemployment hovers around 6 percent. Early this year, Congress passed an economic stimulus package--a necessary step but only a small step and a first step.

Wall Street projects an unemployment rate of 6.5 percent by the end of 2009. It will likely be higher in my State. We have not acted on extending unemployment insurance. The Republicans filibustered extending unemployment insurance when we passed the stimulus package earlier this year. The Republicans again have stopped our efforts and have refused to extend unemployment benefits.

Over 2.6 million Americans--35 percent of all unemployed workers-- have already exhausted their unemployment benefits over the past 12 months. These are people who want to work, who have tried to find other jobs, who simply have been unsuccessful in finding decent jobs.

Workers have paid into the unemployment system for years and deserve protection now. Again, these are workers who have paid into this fund. This is an insurance fund. It is not a welfare fund. These workers deserve the compensation to help during their difficult times as they search for jobs. I urge my colleagues to end their filibuster and to work on extending unemployment insurance.

The President continues to push for a Colombia trade deal. We have not even acted on trade adjustment assistance which provides vital assistance to workers who lose their jobs because of trade. The President has actually threatened to veto the House trade adjustment assistance package.

Whether we have another trade deal, one thing is certain. Trade assistance needs to be reformed, and it needs to be expanded to workers who cannot, in every case, prove they lost their jobs because of trade, even though they probably did. It should be expanded to service workers who have lost their jobs.

Last week, Senate Republicans staged a filibuster to prevent even having a debate on giving a woman a day in court when she faces discrimination in the workplace. Today, women and victims of discrimination, based on race or age or disability or religion, are denied a remedy when they are denied equal pay for equal work. It should not be a partisan issue, but the Republicans have made it one.

Today is Workers Memorial Day--a day set aside every year to honor workers killed and hurt on the job. Trade unionists around the world mark April 28 as an International Day of Mourning.

The most recent data shows that in the United States, there were 5,840 fatal workplace injuries in 2006. Over 5,800 Americans were killed on the job in 2006, over 100 more than in 2005. This includes 196 workers in my State of Ohio.

Under this administration, workplace inspections have declined. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has not vigorously enforced current laws and regulations on the books. It has not set any standards except by court order. It continues to rely on ``voluntary'' compliance to protect workers in many of the most dangerous occupations.

OSHA has dragged its feet on the butter flavoring chemical in popcorn that has caused a fatal lung disease known as popcorn lung disease.

That is too late for Keith Campbell in Caledonia, OH, who is 50 years old but has the lungs of an 80-year-old because of exposure to the chemical at the popcorn plant in Marion, OH.

The point is, it has taken decades of struggle by workers and unions to improve conditions in the mines, in the meatpacking plants, and in the metal stamping shops--in all kinds of plants where workers get all kinds of occupational injuries and illnesses.

This progress has been slowly, and sometimes not so slowly, unraveled by the Bush administration.

Through budget cuts and a shift in emphasis to voluntary employer programs, the administration is essentially telling workers they are on their own. It hearkens back to an era when workers were treated like disposable goods.

In election years, some candidates give drive-by speeches in towns that are hit hard by unfair trade deals and tell them the ownership society is working. In some sense, it is true. More and more, workers ``own'' responsibility for their own safety, their own retirement, and their own health care.

We hear some candidates sometimes talk about how if only taxes on the wealthiest Americans were lower, companies would not outsource production to China or Mexico or to any other country. I don't think that argument is passing the straight-face test these days.

Middle-class families aren't buying it because they see perfectly well what is happening around them. The message of the ownership society coming from the White House is that every man and woman is responsible for himself or herself. But the result of the policies pursued under that banner of the ownership society is the greatest concentration of ownership in the hands of a few that we have seen since the Great Depression. It is ownership all right but only for those in high society.

Over the past 8 years, we have seen an administration that neither values nor rewards hard work. We have seen an administration that simply doesn't value manufacturing. Manufacturing changed the face of America and created a middle class that used its strength and power to change the course of society.

The progress in labor rights, women's suffrage, antitrust laws, conservation, and the social safety net would not have happened without manufacturing and would not have happened without rewarding our work.

When the Bush administration fails to value these manufacturing jobs in the first place, why should we not be surprised when it doesn't value safety in industries such as construction, mining, transportation, and manufacturing?

Our Nation is struggling. We struggle because of the Federal Government's wrongheaded tax policy, and because our trade policy all too often encourages investors to move jobs overseas.

In the last 14 months, I have traveled my State extensively and held roundtables with community leaders, workers, activists, teachers, farmers, and veterans in almost 100 different places in 62 of Ohio's 88 counties. It is clear to me that Ohio workers are fighting back to build a decent standard of living for themselves and for others to provide opportunities for their children and to construct a more prosperous State, one where smart and hard work is rewarded.

I listened to a woman, Dee Dee, who sat in negotiations representing 1,200 janitors in Cincinnati--1,200 men and women who work hard, raise their children, and who contribute to their community; and in this case they are not earning much more than the minimum wage.

Joined by several others at the bargaining table, Dee Dee helped reach an agreement with Cincinnati's office building owners. Over the next 3 years, 1,200 janitors will get between a $2- and $3-an-hour raise, health benefits, and they will get a small pension.

In northwest Ohio, in the farmland of Henry County, Mark Schwiebert, a very productive farmer in an increasingly competitive environment, told me his story. He is proud of his farm, to be sure, but he also takes his role seriously as an American citizen. He is an advocate for family farmers and for fair trade, understanding that the prosperity of Ohio depends on a vibrant rural Ohio where young people want to stay and work in their communities.

Ohioans and workers across the country are fighting back. They did not go away after this Chamber voted down the Fair Pay Act, again a victim of Republican filibuster. They did not go away last year when Republicans mounted yet another filibuster to prevent the Senate from considering legislation to level the playing field for unions trying to represent new groups of workers. They would not go away just because this administration has ignored worker safety and is forcing more families to mourn loved ones on Workers Memorial Day.

We need an ownership society, but it needs to be one in which workers own a greater share of the profits from their productivity, and the Government and employers own a greater share of responsibility for their safety and their well-being.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to honor the service of a great American--U.S. Air Force retired MAJ D. Brock Foster.

A native of Ohio who served his country in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, Major Foster demonstrated uncommon courage while flying as an A-1 Skyraider during a rescue mission near the Ho Chi Minh Trail on June 28, 1968. At great risk to his personal safety, Major Foster remained in the rescue area amid heavy antiaircraft artillery and enemy fire to make repeated passes to protect the rescue helicopter. Major Foster's selfless heroism enabled the successful rescue of the Navy pilot who had been encircled by hostile forces for more than 39 hours.

Nearly 40 years later, Major Foster is receiving long overdue recognition for his sacrifice and valor and will be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. Given to those who distinguish themselves in aerial flight by taking heroic actions above and beyond the call of duty, the Distinguished Flying Cross is a fitting recognition of Major Foster's unwavering dedication to the service of the United States.

I am proud to honor this great Ohioan. His heroic actions and dedication to the U.S. Air Force and his fellow servicemen are an inspiration to all Americans.

Mr. President, our country has lost 230,000 jobs in just the first 3 months of this year. The unemployment rate has gone up to 5.1 percent. In Ohio, unemployment hovers around 6 percent.

Women are also disproportionately at risk in the current foreclosure crisis, since women are 32 percent more likely than men to have subprime mortgages. Existing pay disparities for women exacerbate the economic strain on women and on households run by women, since women earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. Women have significantly fewer savings to fall back on in a time of economic hardship. Nonmarried women have a net worth 48 percent lower than nonmarried men, and women are less likely than men to participate in employer-sponsored retirement savings programs.

These facts make this bill--the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act--all the more timely. Lilly Ledbetter was one of just a handful of female supervisors in the Goodyear tire plant in Gadsden, AL. For years, she endured insults from her male bosses because she was a woman in a traditionally male job. She worked 12-hour shifts--which often stretched to 18 hours or more when another supervisor was absent. But she did not know she was being paid less than men until later in her career. She had no way of knowing how much her coworkers made.

Late in her career with the company, Lilly got an anonymous note in her mailbox informing her that Goodyear paid her male counterparts 20 to 40 percent more than she earned for doing the same job. She then filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She also filed a lawsuit. In court, a jury found that Goodyear discriminated against Lilly Ledbetter. The jury awarded Ms. Ledbetter full damages, but the Supreme Court said she was entitled to nothing because she was too late in filing her claim.

The Court's Ledbetter decision reversed decades of precedent in the courts of appeals. It also overturned the policy of the EEOC under both Democratic and Republican administrations. The Bush EEOC was on the side of Lilly Ledbetter until the Solicitor General took over for the Bush administration. The Ledbetter decision leaves workers powerless to hold their employers accountable for their unlawful, unjust conduct. Employers who can hide discrimination from their workers for just 180 days get free rein to continue to discriminate.

The Fair Pay Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor, will allow workers to file a pay discrimination claim within 180 days of a discriminatory paycheck. It only makes sense that as long as the discrimination continues, a worker's ability to challenge it should continue also. This legislation would simply restore the law to what it was in almost every State in the country the day before the Ledbetter decision. We know it is workable and fair--it was the law of the land for decades.

Now, some in this Chamber will say this will result in more litigation. That is wrong. The Fair Pay Act restores the law to what it was before the Supreme Court decision. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office says the bill will not establish a new cause of action for claims of pay discrimination. Restore the Fair Pay Act. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak up to only 5 minutes as in morning business.

Madam President, there has been a lot of controversy in the last couple of weeks about the President's sending the Colombia so- called free trade agreement to the House of Representatives. Under this unusual law, there is something called fast track procedure. Fast track procedure--this is a lot of inside baseball--changes the way we do business in the House and Senate. Trade law is the only issue that changes the way that we do business. On no other issue that comes in front of the House and Senate, except the budget, are there limits on amendments, are there limits on required up-or-down votes, timetables-- all of that. The Senate rules do not apply on that legislation. It is the only time--in part because of who has written trade policy in this country in the last 20 years.

We have seen trade agreements that always look out for the interests of the drug industry, look out for the interests of the insurance industry, of banking interests, of energy interests. But we have not seen trade policy written in this country, negotiated by the President of the United States, the U.S. Trade Representative, that has shown any of the same concern for workers, for the environment, for food safety, for the safety of consumer products. That is why we have seen what happened with all the toys that came into this country from China. It should not have been a surprise to us that at Eastertime, that at Christmas, that at Halloween last year, that consumer products, especially toys for small children, came into this country that were dangerous. It should not have surprised us because it was somewhat inevitable because of the way we do trade policy in this country.

Professor Jeff Weidenheimer, a professor of chemistry at Ashland University, about 10 miles from where I grew up in north central Ohio, took his class to test children's toys last fall at Halloween and then did it again at Christmas and did it again at Easter. In case after case, they would go to a toy store

or a discount store and they would buy a bunch of toys, very inexpensive toys, and they would test them for lead. Every one of these batches of toys had significant numbers of toys that had lead content-- lead in the paint that covered these toys--lead content way above on average what is considered safe. What is considered safe is about 600 parts per million. These were, in some cases, thousands of parts per million.

What should not surprise us about that is the way we set up trade policy in this country. We don't write trade policy to protect our children or to protect our communities or to protect our workers. We don't write trade policy to protect our food supply. We write long trade agreements--this isn't one, but I have to gather these papers to show how long they are. We pass trade policies that are this long. If we wanted to eliminate tariffs, we would pass trade policies that are this long. You could write a schedule of eliminating tariffs in the Colombian free trade agreement of 2 or 3 pages. Instead, we write agreements that are hundreds, if not in some cases over a thousand pages, because they are full of protections--not for workers, not for communities, not for children, not for our kitchen tables, our families--but these are trade policies that are chock-full of protections for the drug industry, the insurance industry, the oil companies, the banks. That is what our trade policy is all about. That is why.

Go back to Jeff Weidenheimer's class at Ashland University and look what happened. American companies decide they are going to shut down in this country because they would rather pay Chinese workers low wages and not have environmental laws and not have worker safety laws and not have to worry about consumer protection laws, so they shut down plants such as Huffy Bicycle in Sidney, OH, and they move to China where it is a whole lot cheaper. You don't have to worry about treating Chinese workers well because they are disposable. They did have to worry about treating American workers well, frankly, because many of them were union, and even if they were not, we have consumer protection laws, safe drinking water, clean air, environmental laws--all of those kinds of things. So these companies in Ohio and in the State of Washington where the Presiding Officer is from, all over our country, these companies shut down and they move to China.

A company such as Hasbro, a toy manufacturer, moves their production to China. Hasbro then subcontracts with a Chinese company, they subcontract their work. They go to a country, China, that does not have the same environmental safety, worker safety, consumer safety, and wages we have in this country, and then they deal with Chinese contractors and they push those Chinese contractors to cut costs: You have to cut costs; you have to cut costs. Every year they cut costs over the year before, because that is good business. These American companies, when they outsource their jobs to China, force those Chinese contractors to cut costs.

Do you know what happens? They use lead-based paints. Do you know why? Because lead-based paint is cheaper to apply, it is cheaper to buy, it dries faster. These toys, then, all of a sudden, instead of having a coating that is safe for little children instead now have a coating that has lead base in them, making them dangerous to children. But they do that because these American companies are pushing these subcontractors to cut costs.

Forgetting for a moment--because these American companies don't seem much to care and the Chinese contractors don't seem to care much-- forgetting for a moment these people in China are working in these factories and are probably ingesting all kinds of toxic lead themselves--forget that for a moment, as bad as that is. These toys then come back to the United States. Do you know what the Bush administration did? The Bush administration has weakened consumer protection laws and cut the number of inspectors so these products come through the American regulatory system that used to be the best regulatory system, the best consumer product safety system in the world, the best Food and Drug Administration system in the world-- agencies that protected consumer products, about toys, especially--and agencies that protected food products that came into this country. And what do we end up with? We end up with toxic toys coming to our children's bedrooms, we end up with contaminated vitamins and other contaminated food coming into our kitchens. That is the result of American trade policy. It doesn't look out for our families, it doesn't look out for our children, it doesn't look out for our workers, it doesn't look out for our communities. Instead, it looks out for the drug companies, it looks out for the big toy manufacturers, it looks out for the big insurance companies, it looks out for the banks, it looks out for the oil industry. That is what is wrong with our trade policy.

President Bush's answer is let's send another free trade agreement to the Senate, to the House of Representatives, the Colombia free trade agreement. It is more of the same. It will not work.

The last point, Madam President, and I think we are pretty ready to adjourn for the night. When I came to Congress--I was elected the same year the Presiding Officer was elected, 1992--we had a $38 billion trade deficit. That means our country bought $38 billion more than our country sold to other countries around the world. Today, that trade deficit exceeds $800 billion--from $38 billion to $800 billion in a decade and a half. President Bush the First said for every $1 billion trade surplus or trade deficit, it amounted to 13,000 jobs. That means if we had a $1 billion trade surplus, if we were selling more than we were bringing in, it meant 13,000 net gain of jobs in country. If we had a $1 billion trade deficit, it meant we bought $1 billion more than we sold, we had a 13,000 jobs net loss. We have an $800 billion plus trade deficit. Do the math. Think about that.

As we adjourn for the evening, think about what this trade policy is doing. It continues to fail the American people, continues to fail our communities, and it kind of begs the issue about which Albert Einstein once said: The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result.

We are getting the same result. It hurts our communities, it doesn't protect our families--consumer protection and food safety and all of that. These trade agreements are a bad idea. We can fix them. I, like Senator Dorgan, who has spoken on the floor many times about this, want more trade. We want plenty of trade. We just want it under a very different set of rules, rules that protect our families, protect our communities, that protect our workers--not just protecting the drug industry and the oil industry and the energy companies and those toy manufacturers that sort of forget about the safety of our children.

Madam President, today is tax day. People all across America are heading to the post office to get that all-important ``April 15'' postmark. OK, not everybody waits until the last minute, but there are enough procrastinators among us that this is sort of a rite of spring. The first week in Washington brings the cherry blossoms. The 15th of the month brings long lines near midnight in front of the main post office just a few blocks from the floor of the Senate.

For some taxpayers, 2007 was a very good year. Huge fortunes were made on Wall Street by people who correctly bet against the housing market, and some of those of the very wealthiest people were given huge tax breaks that the middle class never saw. But for the people who live in all of those homes, those homes that Wall Street people were betting against in some sense, 2007 was a very tough year. The home ownership rate has actually fallen over the past 6 years, both nationally by a slight amount and close to 2 percent in the Midwest. What is extraordinary about this fact is that it came during a period of the lowest interest rates since the Eisenhower administration. With the economy expanding, with interest rates at record lows, home ownership should have expanded. Instead, it shrunk.

The reason is another trend that has received too little notice by the Nation's newspapers and the Nation's media: economic growth, simply put, has not benefited most Americans. Instead, income and wealth are more and more flowing to the most affluent in our country. The middle class, meanwhile, must work harder and longer to try to maintain its standard of living. Real wages have been in decline for the past several years. The only way a lot of families have kept up is, first, the entry of more women into the workplace--women in greater numbers; second, workers in this country working longer and longer hours, overtime if they can get it, two jobs, sometimes even three jobs; and third, the only way families have kept up is by taking on more and more debt. The third strategy can be a recipe for disaster; sooner or later, the bills come due. You can't borrow your way very long to a decent standard of living.

Economic security begins with economic opportunity. That means good- paying jobs. It means the kind of training that enables workers to diversify their skills and take on new challenges. It means high- quality primary, secondary, and, yes, higher education.

Our Nation is the wealthiest in the world. Overall economic growth has been strong. Working families should be thriving. By and large, they are not. Working families are struggling to find and maintain good-paying jobs to keep their health benefits, to keep their pension benefits if they have them, and those benefits, those health and pension benefits, are being scaled back. It costs more and more, as people painfully know every day, to fill the gas tank. People are borrowing in record amounts just to cover day-to-day costs. So many Ohioans from Galion to Gallipolis are struggling.

The Center for American Progress looked at some key statistics over the past 5 years and found that the average job growth is one-fifth the rate of previous business cycles. The average job growth is one-fifth-- 20 percent--the rate of previous business cycles. Wages have been flat. Only 28 percent of middle-class families have the financial resources to sustain themselves through a period of unemployment. The average family took on debt equal to 126 percent of disposable income just to manage its day-to-day expenses.

Having witnessed the weakest economic expansion in modern history--in

other words, the growth in our economy, the expansion in our economy was weaker than the expansion of the economy at any time in recent history--we now find ourselves in a recession once again. So we didn't have very strong growth when things were supposedly good--when profits were up, when there was economic growth--but it wasn't spread around very well. Now we find ourselves in a recession once again. We have had three straight months of job losses. Consumer confidence in Lima and in Zanesville and all over my State is understandably shaken.

Our Nation cannot afford to take these statistics in stride, just hoping that the precarious financial position of working families is a temporary phenomenon linked to the ebbs and flows of our economy, because it is not. Our economy as a whole is losing ground. As our trade deficit skyrockets, energy and health care costs spiral upward, good-paying jobs are too often shipped overseas, and our Federal deficit climbs higher and higher and higher. Yet, when Congress tries to address any of these problems, we find ourselves faced with filibusters, one after another after another, as well as veto threats. When we tried to react to the Housing crisis last fall, Republicans objected. When we tried to tackle the topic in February, the Republicans objected and we faced a filibuster. Even today, the President threatens to veto the bill passed by the Senate. Sixty-five filibusters, as Senator Durbin and others have said, 65 filibusters-- more filibusters already in the year and 3 months this Senate has been in session than in any 2-year period in the history of the U.S. Senate. Sixty-five filibusters. It means we haven't been able to do what we ought to do in education, on health care, on infrastructure, and, most importantly, on the war in Iraq.

Today, as an example, we are simply trying to pass a technical corrections bill to a highway bill. Yet our Republican colleagues are filibustering and slow walking the legislation once again. Sixty-five filibusters.

We spend $3 billion a week in Iraq, with no questions asked. Halliburton can rob us blind, but we avert our gaze. But to try to build a road, a bridge, or some other public works in the United States, and you will meet with filibusters, delays, and obstructionism by the Republicans. In other words, taxpayers are paying $3 billion and building hundreds of water systems in Iraq--spending that money with Halliburton and Bechtel--and the money goes to these contractors instead of that money coming back to local businesses and building water and sewer systems in Defiance, Findlay, Bryan, Napoleon, and Perrysburg, OH--places that are being squeezed and are not able to afford the reconstruction of the water and sewer systems they need.

We should be doing a lot more construction and a lot less obstruction. Our roads and bridges, in too many cases, are falling apart. If my colleagues don't like a project, they can make their case and offer an amendment instead of the obstructionism, instead of blocking these issues, instead of their 65 filibusters.

The American people are tired of this kind of delay. Their taxes should pay for a government that will work on their behalf, rather than only on behalf of the wealthiest and most powerful people in this country.

We cannot continue down a path that undermines the middle class. We cannot just hope for real economic recovery. You simply cannot get there from here.

Yes.

Yes, there is strong support. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from California. There is strong support for this bill, but not just in those groups. I had in my office building trades people from Mansfield, Lima, Cleveland, Dayton, and Columbus. They were talking about the kinds of jobs--good-paying jobs--in our State on road crews, such as the operating engineers and laborers and all kinds of workers that are paid decent wages. It is a stimulus, as the Senator says. It injects money into our economy immediately. These are ready- to-go projects. We need to fund them so we can work immediately to create these jobs, which will spin off and create other jobs.

But it is the same old story. We have had 65 filibusters from Republicans to stop us from moving forward on everything from health care, to education, to ending the war in Iraq, to jobs programs such as this. This is the best kind of jobs and economic development program. Not only will it create jobs immediately, but it makes it much easier for economic development and for people to bring new business into communities because the infrastructure is more modern.

I thank the Senator for this information and for all she is doing.

I yield the floor.