Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 538, submitted earlier today.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 539, which was submitted earlier today.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, September 10, 2014; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; and that following any leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 19 postcloture; further, that at 2 p.m. all postcloture time be considered expired and the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to proceed.

Madam President, we expect a voice vote on the motion to proceed to the constitutional amendment on campaign finance reform. Shortly after 2 p.m., we expect a rollcall vote relative to the paycheck fairness bill.

Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the provisions of S. Res. 539, as a further mark of respect to the memory of the late Senator James M. Jeffords, former United States Senator for the State of Vermont, following the remarks of Senator Rubio. And a special mention: My chief of staff, Mark Powden, who used to be the chief of staff for Senator Jeffords, gave a eulogy at his funeral and had immense respect for the late Senator from Vermont.

Madam President, I applaud Senator Sanders for his work on the veterans conference report.

I spoke at a breakfast today. I was with the Presiding Officer from North Dakota at the Air Force Caucus. As important as the Air Force is in North Dakota, it is equally important at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, OH--outside of Dayton.

One of the things I talked about at this breakfast is how proud I am, when it looks as if the Senate does not get as much done as we would like, that Senator Sanders and Senator McCain--with a supporting cast but principally the two of them--were able to negotiate with a sometimes reluctant, sometimes erratic House of Representatives on some of these issues. They were able to negotiate a very good veterans bill that will primarily do three things: first, make those accountable at the VA actually accountable; second, take care of those veterans who have had to wait longer than 30 days for their care in the VA, veterans who have earned this care; and third, will scale up the VA--the most important parts--so there will be enough doctors and nurses, mental health therapists and occupational therapists, and enough beds and enough capacity at the VA centers and at the community-based outpatient clinics. If you are in the system, you get good care. It is just that too many haven't been able to get into the system, partly because when we went to war a decade-plus ago, the people running the administration in those days and the Congress said: This war will be short. We don't need to bother with scaling up the VA.

That was shameful. They were dead wrong. Unfortunately, far too many veterans have paid the price. That is why this legislation is so important. The timing is perfect to get this reform at the same time that we have an opportunity this week to confirm Robert McDonald, a fellow Ohioan from Cincinnati who ran a company that had more than 100,000 employees, one of the world's biggest, most prestigious consumer companies.

He went to West Point. He served veterans before. He understands veterans' issues. I talked with him a number of times, as has Chairman Sanders, and Mr. McDonald, as the soon-to-be--I hope the new Secretary. I ask my colleagues to support him--new Secretary will have these new tools because of this conference report which I am hopeful we pass this week

Mr. McDonald understands the importance of VA health care. He knows-- he said this to me in my office and a couple of other times--that the Veterans' Administration has a hospital system unlike any other in the country. It knows how to treat unique illnesses and unique injuries-- unique mostly to veterans--various kinds of brain trauma, various kinds of physical injuries, other kinds of treatment. That is why it makes sense for Mr. McDonald to be the new Secretary of the VA. That is why this veterans conference report is very important.

I yield for my distinguished friend from Georgia.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 29, 2014, at 10:30 a.m. in room SR- 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Revisiting the RESTORE Act: Progress and Challenges in Gulf Restoration Post-Deepwater Horizon.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 29, 2014, at 3 p.m. in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Opportunities and Challenges for Improving Truck Safety on our Highways.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 29, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Breaking the Logjam at BLM: Examining Ways to More Efficiently Process Permits for Energy Production on Federal Lands.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 29, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Tobacco: Taxes Owed, Avoided, and Evaded.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 29, 2014 at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitltd ``Iran: Status of the P-5+1.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 29, 2014, at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on July 29, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Judicial Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 29, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety of the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 29, 2014 at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Examining the Threats Posed by Climate Change.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs and Global Competitiveness of the Commmittee on Finance be authorized to me during the session of the Senate on July 29, 2014 at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement: Lessons Learned Two Years Later.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time.

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.

Mr. President, I have received a number of calls in recent weeks, as we all have, about what is happening at the Veterans' Administration. Over the July 4th week, back in Ohio, I heard from lots of veterans at roundtables in communities all over the State, from Steubenville to Dayton, and lots of places in between: What are we going to do about the VA? I heard outrage. I heard disillusion over the VA. There is outrage about a system charged with caring for those who defend our Nation that falls short. There is frustration and disillusion because our veterans are waiting too long. We need to fix that.

But I also saw letters to the Cincinnati Enquirer and the Cleveland Plain Dealer and I had conversations with veterans who defended and bragged about the service they are getting, the care they are getting, whether it is the VA in Cincinnati or Dayton or Cleveland or Columbus or Chillicothe--the hospitals we have in my State--or whether it is the community-based clinics in places such as Mansfield and Zanesville and Lima and Springfield--those smaller community-based outpatient clinics, so-called CBOCs, that serve veterans who need less acute care but still need service from a doctor, from a nurse, from a physical therapist.

We can only conclude a couple of things. We can conclude there are, in fact, serious problems with the VA that need to be fixed. The Presiding Officer is a prominent member of the Veterans' Committee, and from his veterans hospitals in Connecticut he hears the same. We can also conclude that those who get in the system overwhelmingly are getting good care. There are 6.5 million veterans who are using VA health care with 85 million patient visits a year. That was in 2013. I assume there is a similar number this year. They are getting good care.

The problem is access to the system. The waiting times are simply unacceptable and outrageous and the disillusionment for those veterans is worse. We know what waiting times mean, especially in mental health treatment, where far too many veterans commit suicide.

With costs of war--and particularly this last round of wars over the last decade where we went to war as a nation, wrongly, in Iraq--we didn't pay for that war--and then the President and the Congress a decade ago made a fateful mistake, mostly out of arrogance, assuming that these two wars would be so short we didn't need to scale up the VA, we didn't need to increase funding, we didn't need to expand services, we didn't need to hire more doctors and nurses--two things happened. One, a whole bunch of new veterans, new soldiers and sailors and marines and air men and women, came home from Iraq and Afghanistan. A whole lot more were in the war than President Bush and the Congress thought would happen or cared to think would happen a decade ago.

The second thing is they came home in much worse shape than in previous wars. Soldiers who would have died on the battlefields--the Presiding Officer is a veteran himself and he knows and we all know that the illnesses and physical and mental injuries are much greater in this war because they survived the battlefield when they might not have survived these same kinds of explosions 20 or 30 years ago.

The third thing--I said two. The third thing that happened is because of a decision Congress made that was right a couple of decades ago--I believe it was President Clinton who signed that bill; it might have been President Bush 1--in passing a bill which included a provision called presumptive eligibility for Agent Orange. Before presumptive eligibility, when a veteran came home from Vietnam right after the war or developed an illness many years later, that veteran would have to fight with the VA to prove that Agent Orange was the reason he or she had that illness. After Agent Orange presumptive eligibility, what that meant is that these soldiers and these veterans, 20 years later, if they had 1 of the 20 or so illnesses defined by the law that were connected to Agent Orange, they automatically were eligible. That is called presumptive eligibility, meaning they were eligible for VA services and health care. That was a great thing.

However, what that meant is that as more and more veterans moved forward from Vietnam, as they aged into their fifties and sixties and some into their seventies, they have had a huge influx of patients into the VA. That is why this veterans conference report--the bill that passed the House and the bill that passed the Senate with almost no ``no'' votes--is so important, because our commitment to our veterans must match their commitment to our Nation.

I am the first Ohioan to serve a full term ever on the Senate Veterans' Committee. I have been lucky enough to be appointed to the joint House and Senate conference committee. We need to iron out the differences in these bills. We need to do three things. First, increase the accountability in the VA. VA employees, senior employees in particular, who don't do their jobs should lose their jobs; that if it is proven in fact they did not do their jobs, if they altered information, if they explained away delays incorrectly or dishonestly, that they be held accountable, period.

Although let's keep in mind the vast majority of VA employees, whether they are in Hartford or whether they are in Cleveland, are dedicated public servants to our Nation and to our veterans. These are men and women who chose to serve veterans, to work in Chillicothe, in Zanesville, and in Columbus, and so many of them are veterans themselves. They chose a career to serve veterans and they are veterans themselves. Whether it is a police officer at the Dayton VA, a claims processor at the Cleveland VARO, a nurse

at the Toledo CBOC, our veterans rely on them. We shouldn't condemn the VA at large for the wrongdoings of a relative few.

Second, the compromise bill will provide an option for veterans who are experiencing long wait times. In the Presiding Officer's State of Connecticut and in mine, few veterans are all that far from a CBOC or from a hospital, and this new proposal says that for veterans more than 40 miles away from a CBOC or hospital, they can go elsewhere to a local hospital or a local community-based health center instead of the VA because they are closer. We don't have too many places in my State--and I believe there are none in the Presiding Officer's State--where that is the case. But those veterans who have had to wait 30 years or 30 days should have that option because care for the veteran, our commitment to veterans must match their commitment to our Nation.

Third and last, the compromise bill will expand and enhance the VA's ability to provide veterans with the care they deserve. It will allow the VA to hire more doctors and nurses and physical therapists, to build more beds, to build more capacity at these VA centers and CBOCs to make sure they have the staff necessary. With the end of these two wars, thousands of our newest veterans will be joining the ranks of VA health care.

The shortage of care providers has been especially pressing for vets struggling with a brain injury--the so-called invisible injuries. That is when a soldier in the Army gets a head injury and it might be considered a minor head injury. A number of combatants have told me they get their ``bells rung'' is the term they use. It is an invisible injury, a minor concussion--often not reported but a minor concussion-- and then another one and then another one. Look at what the stories have told us about the NFL players. The same holds true, only in a more serious way, for soldiers and for marines, what happens to them down the road. Thirty years later they go to the VA, their behavior has changed, their families are calling. The VA has no documentation of these injuries. They have to struggle to show these injuries, to prove these injuries to the VA, to the doctors for a diagnosis and to the VA for the coverage of the disability.

That is why my tracker bill, the Fairman Significant Event Tracker Act--or SET Act--is so important. Instead of the burden being on the veteran to show here were my concussions, here were my injuries, I should be eligible for disability; here is what happened to me, diagnose me with the right diagnosis, the Army itself should be keeping those records, and they should follow the health care of the veteran when they are in the military, when they are in the VA. The interface has to take place much more smoothly, so when a soldier turns in her gear and she comes back to Ravenna, OH, or she comes back to Wauseon, OH, or she comes back to Maple Heights or Garfield Heights, the VA locally will know what has happened to her.

These are the challenges. I will finish with a couple of troubling notes I received from a couple of people in Ohio. One came from Gary in Franklin County, which is the home of the State capital: My brother was a Vietnam vet and survivor of a major battle in Vietnam. He never discussed his experiences. He took his life in 1992. This bill will provide important mechanisms to help reduce the rate of suicides among our veterans. Every Member of Congress should support it. It is not a political issue, but a part of our sincere and legitimate commitment to our veterans.

I couldn't have said it better.

Christine from Miami County, the county just north of Dayton in southwest Ohio: This bill will remove the redtape that our veterans encounter at a time when they are least able to deal with it. My son died at his own hands after a tour in the Middle East. He sought help from the VA and was diagnosed with PTSD shortly before dying. I know his mental state at the time, and he would not have been able to handle providing proof that he experienced traumatic events or remember the duties he performed.

In other words, he had these injuries. The military didn't have the records of these injuries because he wasn't injured so badly that he was sent back to Germany or to Bethesda or to Walter Reed, but the military should have kept these records so he knew what, in fact, was wrong. He was not able, in his condition, to put together and find his old buddies that were with him 6 or 8 years earlier that could kind of recall the incidents of what happened.

Christine writes that this bill is a simple, effective solution.

We need to address the issues facing our veterans. Our commitment to our troops must match their commitment to our Nation.

I note the absence of a quorum.

Thank you, Madam President, and thanks to Senator Enzi who is one of the most cooperative Members of the Senate on so many levels. He and I cochaired the Air Force caucus together and he has been good to work with. When I sat on the Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee, he was a member known then, as he still is, as one you can reach out to and who would get things done.

Special thanks to Senator Isakson who is on the floor and to Senators Harkin and Murray who did so much to work with our office on our SECTORS ACT and the whole litany of workforce investment issues. I am indebted to them.

Passing this legislation would reauthorize and improve the Workforce Investment Act which first was established some 15-plus years ago. It includes critical workforce development programs that have helped thousands of Americans get on their feet. It provides streamlined one- stop services that empower adults and students and gives them the tools, skills, and the resources they need to find a new career and improve their current skills. All of this helps to meet the needs of employers looking for trained, skilled workers.

The Cuyahoga Works Career Center in Cleveland is one of those programs. It is run out of The Cuyahoga County Library, known as one of the best library systems in the country. The center told me of a few success stories I wish to share.

A teacher was laid off from Cleveland Public Schools 3 years ago, substitute teaching while she worked with a Cuyahoga Works career counselor. The counselor showed her how to use social networking and LinkedIn more effectively. As a result she connected with an administrator in a local school district that invited her to discuss her job search. During this meeting the teacher learned that although she had a strong background, she could benefit from taking a couple computer classes. The Cuyahoga Works career counselor directed her to the library's Google workshops along with a few other computer courses. Shortly afterwards the teacher let her career counselor know she had accepted a long-term position in one of the local school districts.

Let me share another Cuyahoga Works success story. While visiting the new Cleveland casino, a Cuyahoga Works career counselor was stopped by an employee who had worked with this counselor on her job application. The customer was extremely grateful and went so far as to introduce the counselor to her supervisor explaining, ``This person is the reason I got this job.''

It is clear that legislation such as this works. We know that to compete globally we need workers who can quickly adapt to new technologies in business processes. So our workforce training programs must be able to keep up with the times. That is what the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act does. It builds on existing success and updates it for the 21st century workforce. Part of this improvement means we take a sector-based approach.

Since 2007, I have held some 250 roundtables around my State. From the beginning of the first one at the Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce through a whole host of these in agriculture, with farmers and veterans and small businesspeople, workers and others, what I hear over and over is despite high unemployment, too many employers are having a hard time finding workers with the skills necessary. As a result, job openings in high-growth industries--health care, energy, bioscience, even manufacturing--are going unfilled.

The skill gap exists, especially for careers in high-tech fields and for jobs that require more than a high school degree. But often the skills gap exists with people with less than a college degree. This gap denies workers new opportunities they deserve. It undermines our Nation's economic competitiveness

and limits our ability to attract new jobs and businesses. To close the gap, we need to create industry or sector partnerships to ensure that workers have the right skills to get hired in high-tech emerging industries with good-paying jobs. It means local communities--local community colleges, local workforce investment boards, local labor unions, local small businesses--decide what they need to put these workforce training programs together regionally in community after community, whether it is in North Dakota, the Presiding Officer's State, or whether it is in my State of Ohio, driven by what kinds of jobs are available.

That is why I introduced the Strengthen Employment Clusters to Organize Regional Success--or SECTORS Act--back in 2008. I reintroduced this legislation with Republican Senator Collins from Maine this year. I am pleased that provisions in today's bill are based on our bipartisan SECTORS bill. This modernization bill requires sector-based partnerships to ensure workforce training programs are developed with industry input, with labor input, with local community investment, workforce investment boards, with local businesses, whether it is in Chillicothe or Akron or Toledo or anywhere in my State.

Given the difficulty of negotiations, I am grateful for Chairman Murray's dedication to this bill, for her prioritization of these partnerships, because we know from experience how important they are. With too many Americans still unable to find work, we should do all we can to ensure our workers are fully qualified to fill available jobs. That is what the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act does, and that is why I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, yesterday I chaired, along with Congressman Smith, a Republican from New Jersey, the Congressional-Executive Committee on China. At this hearing, Terry Sefranek, a Clevelander actually from Brooklyn Heights, OH, a suburb of my city, submitted written testimony. The hearing was to address the concerns that American consumers, pet owners, farmers, and parents have about the safety of pet food, pet treats, processed chicken, and animal feed from China. Ms. Sefranek joined me then today on a call with some national press to talk about this issue. I wish to share briefly the actual words of Ms. Sefranek's testimony. She said:

In December of 2011, my little Sampson, a healthy, lively

and hilarious fox terrier mutt was showing signs that he was

not well. He seemed withdrawn, and his appetite was

decreasing, and all he wanted was to drink water and urinate.

His health rapidly decreased.

We took him to the veterinarian 3 times in the next two

weeks. Finally, blood tests revealed horrible results.

Sampson was in acute renal failure.

The Doc gave him intravenous fluids for six long,

tormenting days. And then, the agonizing decision, the

hardest, most heartbreaking decision. With my husband and

children around us, I held my little buddy in my arms for the

last time, as he was euthanized.

Ms. Sefranek continues:

One day during this time, I saw a local family on the news,

holding up a bag of Waggin' Train Chicken Jerky Treats. Their

dog had eaten them and died of renal failure a few weeks

earlier. Their new little puppy was fed leftovers from the

same bag--and became ill right away. As soon as they stopped

the treats, he recovered.

I was floored. It was the exact same treat that Sampson had

eaten; it has been his new favorite, and I was giving him

them as a treat for about a month. I'm sure that was the only

major change in his diet.

Sixty-two million households in this country have a pet. Americans raise 83 million dogs and 96 million cats whom, as is the case with my wife's and my dog Franklin, we treat, in many ways, as members of the family. That is why it is alarming that since 2007, the FDA has been aware of the deaths and illnesses of thousands of pets, but we still don't know what is causing it.

Last month the FDA said that reports of illnesses had increased to 5,600

pets, including 1,000 dog deaths, and now three human illnesses.

Pet owners shouldn't have to worry about the safety of the food they give their pets. When we go to a pet store, go to a grocery store and buy pet food, we shouldn't have to worry that pet food could actually endanger that dog's, that cat's health.

While no cause has been identified, the illnesses many think are linked to pet treats from China, which raises questions. If something says it is made in China, can we be assured that it is safe? If it says ``made in the USA,'' what exactly does that mean? Is everything being done to keep these pet treats safe?

Last year the USDA declared that China can export processed, cooked chicken into the United States. This paves the way for chicken sourced in the United States to be shipped to China for processing and then sold back to American consumers. While no such chicken has yet entered our shores, it is possible that very soon this processed chicken could end up on our dinner tables and in our school lunchrooms.

Researchers are exploring a possible link also between animal feed from China and the PEDv that has wiped out 10 percent of piglets--10 percent of our young pig population. It has been a year already and no definitive cause has been identified.

Americans want and require better answers. We want and require clearer labels and the peace of mind that the foods we import from the People's Republic of China are safe.

This is why I am introducing an amendment to the agriculture appropriations bill to ask the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture about the status of inspectors' visas to China and how many are currently inspecting there.

We heard in testimony yesterday an uncertainty from FDA and USDA about our ability to get the number of inspectors we need into China to inspect the processing of chickens in China. I urged the FDA to investigate and determine the cause of these pet illnesses and PEDv, and the companies to ensure the highest safety standards.

When we buy something that says ``made in the United States of America,'' whether it is food for human consumption or whether it is processed food for human consumption or whether it is processed food for our pets, we should be confident that food is actually made, processed, and put together in the United States of America. In our testimony yesterday, we couldn't quite be 100 percent sure that is the case.

A couple of things need to go on there. One, the packaging and the labeling needs to be believable and credible and it needs to be true. Second, those companies that import--it used to be that companies would produce in the United States with food safety rules we have in the United States--drug safety, food safety--customers, buyers, and supermarkets that buy this food with ``made in the USA'' labels knew that because we have a good FDA, because we have a good U.S. Department of Agriculture, because we have good food safety rules in our country-- we knew that ``made in the USA'' was a label we could trust.

Then companies in this country began to do something in the last 20 years--especially since Congress passed Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. Companies began to shut down production in places such as Rocky River and Maple Heights and Garfield Heights and Brooklyn Heights, OH, and move that production to Wahan or Shihan or Beijing, or Shanghai, China, and then sell those products back to the United States. If companies are going to do that, costing our communities jobs in far too many cases, hurting families and workers who lose those jobs--if companies are going to do that, they need to be responsible in the production in those countries. They need to be responsible when pharmaceuticals are made in China by U.S. companies and then shipped back to the United States. Those pharmaceuticals need to be safe.

We know in the case of a drug called Heparin which people in Toledo, OH, took, and a number of people died from it. All over the country they took this drug. It was a blood thinner made in China by a company that, frankly, didn't know--couldn't reach back and determine and find out where all the ingredients for these drugs were made.

So there are a couple of points. One is whether it is dog treats, whether it is food that humans consume in our country or whether it is pharmaceuticals, our regulatory structure needs to make sure these are safe. If they are made in the United States, we are much more confident they are safe, because government rules and regulations in the United States--despite what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle always like to say about government regulation--we know our food supply is pretty darn good. But if companies are going to outsource that production, move it to China and then sell it back to the United States, we need these rules in place. We need these companies to be reliable and liable ultimately in what they are doing. So if a company is going to bring a drug into the United States--an American company producing in China and bringing it back to the United States--they are responsible for the contents, and they are responsible for the safety of those drugs. Their executives, those companies, should be liable if they are producing that food. Whether it is for human consumption or whether it is for pets or whether it is pharmaceuticals, all of that matters.

Americans, again, should not be worried about the safety of the food they put on the dinner table nor the safety of the pet food they give to their dogs and cats.

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

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

Madam President, American manufacturing has taken quite a hit in the last 15 years in this country. Some 30 years ago, U.S. manufacturing made up some 25 percent of gross domestic product. Today that number has declined to somewhere in the vicinity of 10 or 11 percent of gross domestic product. That has meant literally millions of jobs paying good wages in cities and suburbs and rural America that have simply disappeared. Some have been lost to technology. Far too many have been lost to unfair trade practices, as jobs are moved overseas. Some of that responsibility lies with this Congress, which has written laws or refused to change laws that encourage companies through trade agreements and through tax laws to shut down production in Worcester, MA, or Wooster, OH, and move to Wuhan, China.

But we have seen some good news. From 2000 to 2010, we lost about 5 million manufacturing jobs; 60,000 plants closed in this country. The good news we have begun to see is that since the auto rescue in 2008 and 2009 and since this President has been relatively aggressive-- better than his predecessors--in enforcing trade laws, we have seen growth in manufacturing. Since 2009--again, because of trade enforcement, because of the auto rescue--about 500,000 manufacturing jobs have been created.

We see new investments in advanced manufacturing. We see new investments in clean energy. Natural gas production is providing domestic manufacturers with an affordable energy source. Natural gas prices have remained pretty constant at $4 or $5, with a likely predictable, stable price for the next several years--maybe for a decade.

This production in natural gas has also increased demand for world- class tubular steel. Nearly 8,000 workers across the United States make what we call oil country tubular goods. That is the steel pipes that are some of the strongest steel ever invented, ever developed, because that steel needs to be able to absorb high-speed, high-rotation deep drilling into water and into stone. Only the best kind of hardened steel can withstand that kind of pressure. These jobs--these 8,000 jobs making oil country tubular goods--support another 7 jobs in the supply chain.

We have an opportunity to grow the economy by investing in manufacturing to create more good-paying jobs. But here is the problem: When foreign steel is dumped into our country, American workers pay the price. What that means simply is that when South Korea--which literally has no domestic market. South Korea has begun to produce oil country tubular goods. They do not use this kind of steel in their domestic economy. So they began this production, they started up, they ramped up this industry all for export, which they are free to do. But global oversupply is a major challenge facing our domestic steel industry. It threatens thousands of steel jobs.

OCTG--oil country tubular goods--imports have doubled since 2008. Imports account for more than 50 percent of the pipes being used by companies drilling for gas and oil. If that were done through fair competition, it would be one thing, but here are some things we know:

We know that in South Korea they need to go to mostly Australia and Brazil to get the iron ore and the coal and the limestone for their steel production. Plants in Ohio, in the Midwest, go to Minnesota to get iron ore or they go to Indiana for their coke, which is made from coal. Their coal is processed into coke. They may go to Ohio to get their limestone. So the Koreans, obviously, to get their raw materials--their raw materials have to travel much longer distances for their Korean steel industry than the U.S. steel industry, No. 1.

No. 2, American workers are paid only slightly more than Korean workers, so there is not much difference in the cost of labor.

No. 3, the U.S. steel manufacturers have upgraded and invested many billions of dollars in their production. There is a 2-year-old steel mill in Youngstown, OH. There are major investments in Lorain and Cleveland to make oil country tubular steel--major investments. I was at the Wheatland steel plant north of Youngstown in Warren, OH. There is a $20 million new

investment there. So our mills are just as modern--maybe more modern-- than the Korean mills.

Lastly, after this oil country tubular steel is produced in Ohio or in Pennsylvania, it is transported maybe 50 miles to use in the oil and gas fields at the Marcellus or Utica shale in Ohio or in the region. Korean steel tubes, on the other hand, are transported maybe 10,000 miles to the fields in this country to use in oil and gas drilling.

So clearly we know that the Koreans simply are subsidizing their steel. We call it steel dumping. Call it whatever technical or nontechnical term you want, it is clear that the Koreans are not playing fair.

If they can design an industry--think about this--if Korea can decide: Well, there is a market in the United States for this kind of steel; we will just design an industry, we will subsidize that steel, we will sell into that market, and we may put some of them out of business--if we as a government accept this kind of behavior from Korea, it will show the rest of the world a blueprint on how you take jobs from the United States of America, how you start a business, how you invest in this business, how you illegally subsidize this business, how you export from your country into the United States, throwing American workers out of work, undercutting American companies, and in the end making our manufacturing in the United States of America experience even more decline than we have seen over the last 30 years.

We are asking the Department of Commerce to reconsider its preliminary decision to make sure they look at what, in fact, has happened in this industry. There is no question that the deeper you look--or there is no question on the surface--that Korea is subsidizing its steel, that it is breaking trade rules.

There is clear evidence that our workers and manufacturers are being cheated in another way; that is, by currency. My bipartisan legislation--I have worked with Senator Sessions and Senator Graham and others, Senator Stabenow on the Democratic side--our bipartisan legislation would crack down on China's currency manipulation. It would treat currency manipulation as an unfair trade subsidy and require the Commerce Department to investigate that currency manipulation.

If you cheat on currency, if you devalue in playing this game with currency at the rate of 30 percent, what that means is when China exports a product to the United States, it is 30 percent cheaper, making it very hard for U.S. companies to compete--another way of subsidizing is through currency--or if U.S. companies try to sell into the Chinese market, our goods cost 30 percent more than the Chinese goods. So, again, we simply cannot play on a level playing field.

A report released earlier this year said that 254,000 Ohio jobs would be created if currency manipulation were eliminated by 2015.

When foreign steel is dumped into our country, American workers pay the price. When foreign steel is dumped into our country, American businesses pay the price. When foreign steel is dumped into our country, the communities where these mills are, these communities that supply, feed into, and sell items and sell goods into the supply chain, pay the price too. So it means fewer teachers, fewer police officers, fewer people working, less income, less prosperity in those communities.

Again, when foreign steel is dumped into our country, workers pay the price over and over.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, there is good news for America's veterans this afternoon. Senator McCain and Senator Sanders, the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, have apparently come to a tentative agreement on what we should do to deal with some of the serious problems at the Veterans' Administration.

We know a couple of things. First of all, we know that health care in the veterans hospitals, in the VA system, in the community-based clinics in places such as Akron and Canton and Youngstown and Springfield and Mansfield and the care in the big hospitals, such as Wade Park and Dayton, is superb and there is overwhelming support among veterans for the care they have earned and deserve and are getting. The problem is getting access to that care in a number of cases. Too many veterans have waited too long, been forced to wait too long to get the medical care and the medical treatment they need.

That is a product, frankly, of a historically underfunded VA. We know a decade ago, when the President a decade ago--more than a decade ago-- and the Senate and the House took the country to war the Veterans' Administration funding was put pretty flat. There was no real preparation by the Congress, by the President--then President Bush--and by the VA to scale up veterans' capacity, the VA capacity, veterans' health care--not enough nurses, not enough doctors, not enough health care personnel, not enough capacity at the VA health care system to take care of the surging numbers of soldiers coming home, sailors coming home, marines coming home, air men and women coming home.

We also know at the same time what happened with Agent Orange, and the Agent Orange presumptive eligibility. As Vietnam veterans were beginning to get sicker, were beginning to show more and more symptoms, the government made the right decision, Congress made the right decision, if a soldier had boots on the ground, they were eligible. If a soldier had an illness defined by the law that was connected to Agent Orange, then they were presumed to be eligible. They didn't have to go back and prove they were actually exposed at a certain place at a certain time in Vietnam. All of those were good things, as our country, our government, our VA, embraced war, men and women, to get the VA care they earned.

The bad news was Congress and the President didn't prepare for it a decade ago as this surge of new people, the veterans coming home, veterans living here for a number of years after doing their service, that they could get the health care they needed. That is the reason we have had these long delays.

There are certainly issues of leadership within the VA. There are issues of administrators not doing their jobs. They should be held accountable. They should pay a price for that--sometimes termination, certainly disciplinary action if shown to have failed to live up to their responsibilities ethically and efficiently and correctly and responsibly.

It is clear this new agreement will take us forward. It will mean a couple of things. One, it means those administrators, those VA officials who didn't do their jobs, will be held accountable. Secondly, and most importantly, it will mean veterans who have had long delays or who live in rural areas and simply can't get the coverage, can't get to the VA clinic, the community-based outpatient clinic or the VA hospital, the VA center, if they can't get that health care treatment today, or soon, they can go to a private hospital, they can go to a community-based health clinic and get the coverage, get the care they need at no cost to the veteran.

The third thing is, to make up for the neglect of a decade ago that we have tried to remedy by almost doubling the VA budget over the last 5 years to take care of all these people who are now in the system who have suffered much more serious illness and disability than the veterans of a generation ago who might have died on the battlefield from these same injuries, that we scale up the training of doctors and nurses in these VA facilities.

There has been an agreement reached among a group of us on the veterans committee and both parties that we will fund a number of new facilities around the country as we train more

doctors and nurses and other health care personnel--physical therapists, occupational therapists, and others.

At a time of not particularly good news for veterans over the last few weeks and really over the last few months, this is good news. This will make for a better VA. We know the VA is a huge health care system, with 85 million veteran visits, patient visits to the VA over the last year and 8 million different veterans have used the VA over the last 12 months. We have to make sure we do our jobs as Senators and Members of Congress and in the White House to take care of our veterans. For those who served us, it is time we served our veterans.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, during Memorial Day and last week, I spent much of the time traveling Ohio with Michael Fairman, a retired Navy corpsman and a Columbus resident, who served with the Marines in Afghanistan from 2007 to 2011. His son Zack is a third-generation Navy corpsman serving with the Marine Corps First Tank Battalion deployed in the Middle East.

Based on his own combat experiences and his concern for other veterans and the suicide of a friend, a fellow veteran, Mr. Fairman came to my office with an idea of how we can help both servicemembers and veterans--veterans like Alexander Powell, a student at the University of Toledo who joined us in Northwest Ohio. Mr. Powell was deployed in Iraq in 2006 when his gun truck was struck by an IED. He had no physical or visible injuries. He went back to duty the next day, but he began experiencing blackouts and dizzy spells. It wasn't until 2009 that he was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury and hospitalized to begin treatment.

Mr. Powell is not alone. The VA reports that some 300,000 veterans struggle with post-traumatic stress. The Defense Department reports that out of 300,000 TBI injuries, there are 25,000 cases of what they call mild traumatic brain injuries because mild TBI is an invisible injury. Think of an NFL player getting a concussion or a series of concussions over a period of a career. Think of a soldier getting what a number of soldiers said to me--marines and air men and women and soldiers and sailors talk about getting their ``bell rung'' when they get a head injury. It is an injury that is not serious enough for an NFL player to sit down, not serious enough for a soldier to be sent home, perhaps not serious enough for a soldier to get any medical treatment at all, but one of a series of concussive events of invisible or minor head injuries can lead to problems a number of years later.

So when veterans or servicemembers seek service-connected disabilities for related injuries, they often don't have the necessary documents needed to establish the connection between their military service and their claim with the VA. That was the case for Mr. Powell. He told me last week:

It was my job [after returning home] to gather up any proof

that I had to show that my truck was hit by an IED and gather

statements from people who were there to corroborate my

story. That is a task, if not done immediately after the

incident, that is almost impossible to accomplish.

So 5 years, 6 years, 7 years later, Mr. Powell is back in Ohio trying to piece together the series of head injuries he sustained, what exactly happened, finding witnesses, his unit commander, and comrades to be able to prove to the VA that his disability is earned and warranted and trying to explain to his doctor what his head injuries might have entailed. The burden is on the veteran to provide the VA with information establishing the connection between their claim and their service. This can lead to denied claims. It can lead to improper medical care. It increases the disability claims backlog.

We are all concerned--even though the VA has shrunk that backlog by 50 percent in the last year or so, we also know that one of the reasons for the backlog at the VA is it takes so much more time for the VA employee and the soldier to try to piece together the record of injuries that might have taken place 5 years ago, a decade ago, a decade and a half ago. That is why I introduced the Significant Event Tracker Act, which Mr. Fairman helped to create. This bill will improve the claims process for veterans and servicemembers. Mr. Fairman visited a number of House and Senate offices. The only one who responded was actually Senator Cornyn's office, from Texas. He and I have talked about this bill, and we both understand how important this can be to veterans. Let me explain the bill.

First, it would allow unit commanders to document events, such as a roadside bombing, that each servicemember in their command is exposed to and which might later be connected to these ``invisible injuries.''

Second, recording this information on an individual basis will help military medical officers better diagnose and treat military members who have mental health concerns.

Finally, for veterans and military retirees, this act will help them file better initial claims--claims with supporting documentation from DOD. In other words, veterans should be able to focus on their recovery, not on having to prove the cause of their injury.

Let me say that again. A soldier going to the VA in Dayton, OH, or Cincinnati or to a veterans clinic in Mansfield should be able to focus on her recovery and not having to prove the cause of her injury. This bill puts the responsibility on the Army, on the Marines, on the Defense Department, not on the veteran, to track and connect significant events to individual servicemembers that would later potentially lead to post-traumatic stress or to traumatic brain injury. Commanders already report major injuries. We want commanders to report about individual servicemembers who were involved in any kind of a minor or ``invisible'' head injury.

This was a big idea that came to me from Michael Fairman. He visited a number of Senate offices and House offices. Senator Cornyn showed interest in it. My office has written the legislation with Michael Fairman. This Nation is rightfully proud of our veterans. This idea came from a veteran. This idea deserves to be seriously entertained by this Senate and, frankly, by the Defense Department, if we can work with them, on finding ways to implement some of these ideas.

25th Anniversary of Tiananmen Square

Mr. President, I rise to commemorate an event that happened 25 years ago today not just in Beijing, China, but in other places in China when millions of people across that country, in Tiananmen Square and other places, rallied in support of democracy, human rights, and an end to official corruption.

Like many Americans, I was inspired. At the time, I wasn't a Member of Congress. Living in Ohio, I was inspired by the courage and pursuit of individual fundamental freedoms--freedoms that we hold dear in this country and sometimes take for granted, that are not always granted in other countries around the world. I recall the optimism of that moment and how it was crushed when the tanks rolled in.

Today we assess what the last 25 years meant to the Chinese but also, more importantly, to U.S.-China relations and what our policy should be. China has made tremendous leaps forward in the past 40 years since normalization, but following Tiananmen Square we have missed opportunity after opportunity to integrate China into the global rule- based community of nations to protect our economic interests and to move China in the right direction on political reform.

It is not an easy task, but 25 years later China is still fundamentally undemocratic. It too often refuses to play by the rules-- rules that would benefit China short term and long term. The question now is whether China will address the challenge facing it or will it continue to take a more doctrinaire and hardline stance, one that undermines the progress China has made and, because of China's influence, could undermine the global system and regional stability.

In many respects China has reaped the benefits of open trade with the rest of the world while avoiding many of its obligations. Our trade deficit with China at the time of Tiananmen Square 25 years ago stood at $6 billion; that is, we bought from China $6 billion in goods more than we sold to China. Last year it grew to 50 times that

amount--$318 billion--the highest ever. That means almost every single day of the year on the average, every single day of the year, we buy from China $900 million more in goods than we sell to China. That trade deficit and China's currency manipulation has cost Americans millions of jobs and significantly reduced our Federal budget.

I know what unbalanced, unfair, and not playing on a level playing field trade with China has done to places such as Springfield, OH, Marion, OH, and Chillicothe and Lima, and my hometown of Mansfield, and Ravenna, OH, all over my State, all over the Midwest, all over the country. In the end, we compromised as a nation too much. We bought into the myth that China's economic integration after Tiananmen Square would bring about human rights and respect for the United States and international rules. That is not what has happened.

Through the commission I chair, the Congressional Executive Commission on China, we have tried to honor the memory of Tiananmen Square by making sure that China's obligations toward human rights and the rule of law are not forgotten.

The commission highlighted many concerns: cyber theft threats to democracy in Hong Kong, illegal, unfair trade practices, denial of visas, or threats of denial of visas to foreign journalists, food safety, environmental, and public health concerns, a crackdown on human rights activists, including Ilham Tohti, a peaceful activist for the Uyghur minority group in Tibet.

It is my hope we have an open and transparent debate about our China policy. Whether it be on trade agreements, where we continue to be on the short end every single year, or whether it is about growing Chinese foreign investment in this country, this debate must be given proper weight rather than ignoring our concerns over human rights, the rule of law, labor, public health, and the environment.

Above all, the debate about U.S. policy toward China must include all segments of our society and not the way we typically do trade agreements in this country, supported by newspaper publishers, economists at Harvard, but not fundamentally supported by the American people and the public.

Our workers and small businesses need to be included, NGOs and human rights groups, instead of being led by powerful interest groups such as large corporations. Debate needs to be inclusive and it needs to draw on the interests and aspirations of all parts of American society.

More must be done as we honor 25 years in the memory of Tiananmen Square. The world must continue to seek improvements on China's record of human rights and the rule of law. More must be done. Only by recognizing the legitimate aspirations of its people and the obligations of the international system can China assume the role to fit its history and its size.

I yield the floor.

I rise to discuss the growing problem with U.S.-China relations.

Earlier their week we saw another example of how the Chinese Communist government will do everything it can--anything--to get ahead. The United States of America, in something that rarely happens, charged five Chinese military officers and accused them of hacking into American nuclear, metal, and solar companies to steal trade secrets.

This is not only a national security concern, it is an economic concern. Two who were allegedly hacked are U.S. Steel and the United Steelworkers union--organizations with which I have helped to file unfair trade practice cases against Chinese state-owned companies. It is not only a cause-and-effect, but these two entities, a steel company and a steelworkers union, filed unfair trade practices against China, and now the U.S. Government is filing legal charges against them for going after these two companies--against the Chinese.

We won these trade cases because we held China's feet to the fire and used our trade laws to level the playing field for our steel companies and our steelworkers. Jobs were saved and factories stayed open because of these trade cases, and that is precisely why China is targeting these companies.

We know the Chinese will do just about anything to get ahead economically. Fair enough. We also know that China will cheat and spy. The best example is currency manipulation, which makes Chinese exports more competitive.

When you manipulate the currency--when China sells products into the United States, the price is less, basically subsidizing Chinese exports into the United States, putting American workers out of jobs. When U.S. companies export to China, because China has manipulated the currency, it means that the prices are higher for these American goods, making them significantly less than competitive, if you will, in China. So when China cheats on currency, our workers at U.S. Steel in Lorain, Wheatland Tube in Warren, Vallourec Star in Youngstown, and TMK IPSCO in Brookfield lose out, and when our workers suffer, our economy suffers.

A December 2012 report by the Peterson Institute--a conservative think tank--found that currency manipulation by foreign governments costs the government between--quite a range--1 million and 5 million jobs, increasing

the U.S. trade deficit by $200 to $500 billion a year. These are manufacturing jobs that are about export or competing with imports. They are almost always pretty good-paying jobs.

In 2012 our trade deficit with China broke $300 billion for the first time, and then in 2013 for the second time it broke $300 billion.

An Economic Policy Institute report notes that ``addressing currency manipulation is the single most important policy change for U.S. workers.'' EPI argues that up to 5.8 million American jobs--40 percent of them in manufacturing--would be created if currency manipulation were eliminated by next year. It would reduce the goods deficit by at least $200 billion. For my home State of Ohio, EPI found that eliminating global currency manipulation by next year would create 254,000 jobs--up to 75,900 in manufacturing; reduce Ohio's unemployment rate by nearly 3 percentage points; increase Ohio's GDP by up to $17.4 billion; and improve the fiscal position of Ohio's State and local governments altogether by up to $3.7 billion. That is only Ohio. It doesn't count Connecticut; it doesn't count Arizona; it doesn't count the other 47 States. That is why we are urging the administration to be more aggressive and level the playing field for American workers and businesses.

We should pass my bipartisan legislation with Senators Sessions, Graham, Stabenow, Hagan, and others, which would treat currency manipulation as an unfair trade subsidy and require the Commerce Department to investigate currency manipulation.

It is also why we must urge China to comply with the World Trade Organization commitments and fully and faithfully implement all the WTO rulings against it.

The U.S. Trade Representative's report paints a sobering picture of the Chinese state's efforts to intervene in the economy and unfairly help China's businesses despite its WTO commitments that it wouldn't do that. China still has not agreed to the procurement agreement from WTO. By not doing so, our businesses miss out on the opportunity to compete for potentially $100 billion a year in contracts. In other words, China won't let us sell into their country in many cases because they don't follow the WTO procurement agreement.

Another issue noted by the USTR is China's imposition of retaliatory duties against countries bringing WTO cases against it. One case involving grain-oriented electrical steel--and I was speaking to an executive at AK Steel, David Horn, an executive at AK Steel in southwest Ohio--China not only lost in a WTO challenge but now appears to not comply with the ruling. The continued imposition of these duties even after WTO ruled against it has caused significant harm to companies such as AK Steel, as I mentioned, which is based in West Chester, OH.

The issue of retaliation figured prominently in the latest cyber espionage cases brought by the Department of Justice. Several American companies and the steelworkers union that were targeted were taking part in trade cases to challenge China's unfair trade practices.

China tries to intimidate our companies and they try to intimidate the U.S. Government from holding them accountable to international and U.S. laws. Living up to their trade obligations and promoting the rule of law in China not only benefits American companies, American workers, and American local communities, it also benefits the Chinese people.

There are already examples of Chinese companies willing to play by the rules. I applaud the announcement that Fuyao Glass Industry Group, a Chinese producer of auto safety items, has finalized its agreement to buy the former General Motors plant in Moraine, OH, a Dayton suburb. It is an example of how fair trade and foreign direct investment going both ways can benefit the Chinese, a Chinese company, and create 800 new jobs in Ohio. But to truly have a fair trading relationship, there must be a level playing field. That means playing by international rules.

This brings me to my final point. If China continues to manipulate its currency, cheating American workers, cheating American businesses, refuses to abide by WTO rules, is now accused of stealing trade secrets from American companies and unions, why in the world would this Senate even consider and why would the President consider entering into a bilateral investment treaty with China? Have we not learned?

In 1999, the year 2000, we passed permanent normal trade relations with China. Many of these issues were aired then. China said they would follow the rule of law. China said they would do it right. China hasn't followed the rule of law. China hasn't done it right. China hasn't played fair. So we are considering entering into a bilateral investment treaty with China? I don't think so.

I yield the floor.