Floor Statements

Mr. President, over the last few years, our country has grappled with rising health care costs.

While we are making strides, there is one area of health care that is lagging behind: pediatric research.

Children comprise 20 percept of the U.S. population, but only about 5 percent of the National Institutes of Health, NIH, extramural research is dedicated to pediatric research.

If this rate of investment is not expanded, discoveries of new treatments and therapies for some of the most devastating childhood diseases and conditions will be hindered, and the next generation of researchers will be discouraged from entering into the field of pediatrics.

That is why I have introduced the National Pediatric Research Network Act. This act seeks to reverse this trend by strengthening and expanding NIH's investments into pediatric research.

This expanded investment will help accelerate new discoveries and directly affect the health and well-being of children throughout our Nation.

My home State of Ohio is home to world-class researchers at topnotch research hospitals and universities.

We must give these institutions, including Cincinnati Children's, Rainbow Babies, Children's Hospital, and Nationwide Children's Hospitals, the resources to partner with other leading researchers across the country.

This legislation creates such an opportunity.

The centerpiece of the legislation will be the authorization of up to 20 National Pediatric Research Consortia.

They are modeled after the exemplary National Cancer Institute, NCI, Centers to help finance efficient and effective, inter-institutional pediatric research.

While NIH is working to advance translational research through Clinical & Translational Science Awards, those centers are far-reaching and focused primarily on adult diseases and clinical research. In contrast, these pediatric centers would be solely dedicated toward pediatric research.

Unlike existing NIH initiatives in which only the largest research institutions receive funds, the legislation envisions that each center will operate in a ``hub and spoke'' framework with one central academic center coordinating research and/or clinical work at numerous auxiliary sites. Encouraging collaboration can help ensure efficiency.

Furthermore, this legislation will encourage research in pediatric rare diseases.

While each rare disease or disorder affects a small patient population, it is important to note that 7,000 rare diseases--such as epidermolysis bullosa, sickle cell anemia, spinal muscular atrophy, Down syndrome, Duchene's muscular dystrophy, and many childhood cancers--affect a combined 30 million Americans and their families.

What is even more devastating is the fact that children with rare genetic diseases account for more than half of the rare disease population in the United States.

As anyone with a rare disease or disorder knows, these patient populations face unique challenges.

It is my hope the National Pediatric Research Network Act will increase our understanding of pediatric diseases, improve treatment and therapies, and create better health care outcomes for our nation's children.

I thank Senators Wicker, Whitehouse, Kerry, Blumenthal, and Begich for joining me as original cosponsors.

Madam President, I rise today because there was an obvious omission in the Olympic opening ceremony on Friday.

Forty years after 11 Israeli Olympians and a German police officer were murdered in the 1972 Munich games, the London games opened with no acknowledgement of this tragedy. There was neither mention nor a moment of silence for those victims of the Munich massacre.

Forty years ago, on September 4, five Palestinians stormed the apartments of the Israeli national team in the Olympic Village, murdering 11 Israeli team members. Yet, again and again, the IOC has rejected requests to hold a moment of silence for the Munich 11 at the opening ceremonies.

I thank Senator Gillibrand for her resolution calling on the IOC to hold a moment of silence at the opening ceremonies to remember the 1972 Munich massacre.

I remind the International Olympic Committee that it is not too late. We can still pay tribute to these Olympians. These athletes were not random victims. They were targeted because of the country they represented and the beliefs they held.

Jacques Rogge, the IOC President, has said:

We feel that the opening ceremony is an atmosphere that is

not fit to remember such a tragic incident.

That is the best he can do.

On the 40th anniversary, I cannot think of a more appropriate moment to remember and honor these 11 Olympians.

The Munich massacre is part of the Olympic story. We can't erase it, and we should not overlook it. After all, we know what happens when we avoid the past. Of course, we cannot afford to repeat it.

I ask we all do everything we can to convince the IOC to step up and do the right thing.

Let me explain why this especially matters for people in my home State of Ohio--in greater Cleveland, the part of Ohio which I call home. In Beachwood, OH, a suburb east of Cleveland, there is a national memorial to David Berger, an American citizen and one of the 11 Israeli team members killed in Munich.

As a Nation, we honor his memory and the memory of his Israeli teammates, but we also have a moral responsibility to hold accountable those responsible for his death. Holding them responsible includes those who supported and financed the terrorists who perpetrated these actions.

We had the chance to hold Libya accountable. Yet during negotiations that led to the 2008 U.S.-Libya claims settlement agreement, Mr. Berger was not included, despite widely accepted evidence that Libya played an important role in the massacre.

We know the Qadhafi regime financially supported terrorist groups such as the Black September organization. It supported them and it welcomed the bodies of the dead terrorists from the Munich massacre back to a hero's tribute.

Seeking justice and compensation for victims of global terrorism sends a powerful message to those who may be seeking to do further harm. The window of opportunity to engage the new Libyan Government has never been greater. Libyan Ambassador Ali Suleiman Aujali said earlier this month in an op-ed in the Washington Post that he hopes ``that Washington considers an enterprise fund for Libya'' and that ``we would work closely with the U.S. Government on its creation.''

Those are the words of the Libyan Ambassador. Such a fund should include all those who deserve restitution for the losses they suffered. This includes the Berger family.

This is about letting violent extremists know they and their supporters will be pursued until justice is served--sending a clear signal to those contemplating terrorism as a political tool.

As we all cheer on the American athletes in the next couple of weeks, I ask that we all take a moment to think about the Munich massacre, about David Berger, and about what more we can do to preserve their legacy and resolve to thwart those who by their use of terror and violence would undermine all that the Olympic games are supposed to represent.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to Ben Cohen, a fellow on my staff.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to S. Res. 533 submitted earlier today.

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

Madam President, I understand there are two bills at the desk, and I ask for their first reading en bloc.

I now ask for a second reading en bloc and object to my own request en bloc.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, July 31; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that the majority leader be recognized and the time until 12:30 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first hour and the Republicans controlling the second hour; and that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings.

Madam President, we will continue to debate the cybersecurity bill tomorrow. Senators will be notified when votes are scheduled.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate adjourn under the previous order.

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

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

Madam President, I rise to speak about the need to extend middle-class tax cuts.

We have a broad bipartisan consensus that middle-class families should not see their taxes increase on January 1. We know that if Congress does nothing, then the taxes will increase for the broad middle class on that date. We have a broad bipartisan consensus that should not happen.

So while we have this moment of agreement, we should act swiftly to extend tax cuts for 98 percent of American families--about 99 percent of the people in my State--right now, today, this week, soon. But we will not because special interests and their allies in Congress are holding middle-class tax cuts hostage. Why? It is the same old song: In order to protect the interests of millionaires and billionaires. It seems the default button--certainly in the majority of the House of Representatives and far too many in the Senate--is, no matter what, protect the interests of millionaires and protect the interests of billionaires.

Let's be clear. Whether it is our plan where we immediately--today, this week, as soon as possible--grant tax relief for people who are middle class, every American will get a tax cut on their first $250,000 worth of income. If someone is making $1 million a year, they still get a tax cut on their first $250,000. If someone makes $10 million a year, they still get a tax cut on their first $250,000. They are only paying

roughly 4 percent on every $1 above $250,000. So we have bipartisan agreement. Let's lock that in so the middle class will get a tax cut.

There is an old cliche that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. We have been in this policy shop before, when they sold us the same flawed economic policies based upon tax cuts to the wealthy trickling down to the middle class. I was in the House of Representatives in the first part of the last decade when President Bush came to us. We had a huge budget surplus. In fact, in 2001, we had the largest budget surplus in American history--surplus, not deficit. Look what we are dealing with now.

So what happened? Two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a bad idea to go into Iraq, a contentious issue. The intelligence wasn't right that Congress was given. Many of us voted against it.

But put that aside. Nobody paid for the war in Iraq. Then there were the tax cuts that went overwhelmingly to the wealthiest people in our society. Nobody paid for those tax cuts. Then there was the Medicare partial privatization prescription drug bill. Nobody paid for that. So we went from the biggest budget surplus in American history to the biggest budget deficit. At the same time, the economic geniuses of the time that were running the government didn't use the words ``trickle down,'' but that is what it is. They said: If we cut taxes on the richest people of our country, all that wealth will trickle down to the middle class and to working families and the poor and everybody will get richer and the economy will take off.

We had 8 years of that experiment. What happened? Between 2000 and 2010, we lost 5 million manufacturing jobs under those economic policies of giving huge tax breaks to the rich. The fundamental tenet and central core of that policy was huge tax cuts for the rich. What happened? We lost one-third of our manufacturing jobs. It is only since we have begun to bring some more fairness with the Recovery Act, with Wall Street reform, with the auto rescue--especially important in my State--and other things we have done did we see the economy grow from 2010. The unemployment rate in my State in 2009 was 10.6 percent. Now it is 7.3 percent. That is not good enough, but it is certainly progress. There were 5 million manufacturing jobs lost between 2000 and 2010. Since 2010, almost every single month we have gained, in the aggregate, some 450,000 to 500,000 manufacturing jobs.

So this policy of cutting taxes on the wealthy was going to create prosperity. It didn't work that way. We went from a surplus at the end of the Clinton years to massive deficits at the end of the Bush years.

Let's be clear. We are talking about returning the tax rates for the top 2 percent of the Americans to the 1993 level, the same year President Clinton balanced the budget. Opposition to our bill to extend the middle-class tax cuts says that if millionaires have to pay the same top marginal tax rate they did in the Clinton years, then job creation will suffer. But it doesn't make sense. We want to go back to tax rates for the richest people in our country to what they were under President Clinton. During that 8 years, jobs increased by 22 million in this country. During the Bush years, with low tax rates for the rich, we lost 5 million manufacturing jobs and had absolutely anemic economic growth. One doesn't have to be an economist to make this comparison. Look at tax rates during the Clinton years and the Bush years.

I don't want to blame everything on President Bush. That doesn't get us anywhere. It makes people quit listening. But I do want to learn from history. Look at the tax system we had during the Clinton years and the tax system we had during the Bush years and make the contrast about what happened: 22 million jobs created; not so good during the Bush years, with very anemic job creation.

For too many people in my home State, the recession didn't mean they had to delay buying a new yacht. Workers in Steubenville, in Norwood, and Norwalk were struggling to stay afloat. They struggled to make ends meet. Too many are still struggling. That is why we have a responsibility to the people in New Hampshire and the people of Ohio and all over to pass the Middle Class Tax Cut Act of 2012.

The median household income in Ohio is $47,358. For those families, a $2,000 tax cut means a whole lot. We know that 98 percent of Americans who would benefit from this tax cut are going to put that money back into the economy. This isn't trickle down. This is, someone gets a tax cut like that and maybe they can put a downpayment on a car, maybe they can help pay their son or daughter's way to community college, maybe they can do some remodeling in their house, maybe they can do some things around the house that they need to do or take their kids to a movie or go out to dinner once in a while. But that $2,000 truly means a lot for a family with an income of $47,000. That is why this legislation is so important.

We can't afford to stall on this important middle-class tax cut for the Americans who need it most. The middle class in our society has been beat up long enough, for 10 years, where wages have been stagnant, where people are too anxious about layoffs, where people simply haven't had the opportunity to do what they need to do to build this great country.

I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent following my remarks that the Senator from Nevada be recognized.

Madam President, I rise because too many elected officials, too many pundits, editorial writers, elite economists, and leaders of big corporations have simply gotten too comfortable and too used to sending American jobs overseas. We have seen outsourcing time and again from the U.S. Olympic Committee's decision to crown our Nation's top athletes with a ``Made in China'' beret to leaders of American companies far too eager to cash in and shutter U.S. manufacturing plants and open doors to cheaper labor in foreign countries. They don't just have a cheap labor advantage, they also have weak environmental rules, nonexistent or nonenforced labor laws, subsidies for currency, energy, land, and for capital.

In other words, in some sense, in this whole Olympic debacle, with hundreds of American athletes at the opening ceremonies in London, the U.S. Olympic Committee has simply said: We will give the gold medal to China for cheating.

In far too many cases, U.S. investors and executives have gotten richer at the largest companies while U.S. workers in places such as Hamilton, Youngstown, Lorain, Lima, and Solon, OH, struggle to make ends meet. That is why I am here with a simple message: Let's replace outsourcing with insourcing. Let's see the ``Made in America'' label sewn into the blazers that Members of Congress wear and on football helmets worn by our student athletes.

I am wearing a suit made by union labor in Cleveland, OH, today. Let's see the letters ``U.S.A.'' stamped in every steel beam used in our country and the armored steel purchased by our U.S. Armed Forces. We must encourage companies to return to the United States and discourage them from ever leaving.

Right now we have it backward. Our Tax Code is upside down. As it stands, businesses can classify moving personnel and company components to a foreign country as a business expense and therefore deduct the cost of offshoring from their taxes. So when a plant moves from Youngstown to Beijing, when a plant moves from

Freemont to Shihan, when a plant moves from Toledo to Wuhan, that company can deduct those moving expenses on its taxes and get a tax break for moving overseas. Combined with our outdated trade policy, with PNTR with China and no real reporting requirements and even fewer enforcement rules and mechanisms, the current American tax law encourages companies to move jobs offshore, where labor is cheap and environmental and health standards are weak.

We saw a decade of manufacturing job loss. From 2000 to 2010, we lost more than 5 million manufacturing jobs in our country. One-third of our manufacturing jobs disappeared from 2000 to 2010. Fortunately, in part, because of the auto rescue which was such a resounding success in Ohio, for instance, we have seen a 500,000 manufacturing job increase in the last 2 years. We know what happens with manufacturing job loss. It can destroy a family which had a decent wage and then can't find a job with any kind of decent wage. It weakens communities and undermines the tax base. It means police, firefighters, librarians, mental health counselors, and teachers get laid off.

But now the manufacturing sector is turning around. As I said, over the last 2 years, our country, led by the revitalization of the auto industry, is beginning to manufacture jobs. It is clear why our country and why my State of Ohio are good places to do business. We have a first-class workforce, a strong network of colleges and universities, and manufacturing know-how that is second to none.

Not only that, companies are returning to the United States because of higher costs associated with doing business abroad, whether that be transportation costs, higher wages in places such as China, and the legal difficulties of doing business overseas. We are seeing some return, but unfortunately it is more anecdotal and not extensive enough. We obviously have to keep looking ahead and make more of it happen. That is the good news.

In Ohio, we see more and more evidence that demonstrates how companies are beginning to move operations back to the United States. For instance, Apex Sports, based in Zanesville in eastern Ohio, produces softballs with an engineered foam core. They were once made in China. Apex Sports now makes its softballs in the United States. They got their start at the Muskingum County Business Incubator, which I visited not too long ago.

Roesweld Equipment is a small exporter in Columbus that now makes its products in Ohio rather than China. Columbus-based Priority Designs manufactures dsolv, a compostable netting bagging system for yard waste. Its product is now made in the United States but was previously produced in Asia. We can do more to get Americans back to work. It makes plain sense to put U.S. tax dollars back into the U.S. economy. The U.S. tax dollars pay for some products such as American flags that fly over our post offices, outfits for a Federal agency, any kind of products bought by taxpayers and by the government. It makes sense on every level that those products be made in the United States.

Let me tell you about a 22-year-old family-owned company in Akron called American Made Bags. They are making bags for Olympians and the Army National Guard. They are making them here in America. Why shouldn't our national policies support American companies and support American workers? The Bring Jobs Home Act, sponsored by Senator Stabenow and many others, makes two commonsense changes in our tax laws. It is a carrot-and-stick approach. It gives a tax credit that any business can use against their overall tax liability for costs associated with moving a production line, such as a trade or business located outside the country, back into the United States. That is the opposite of what we do now.

By providing this tax credit, we give incentives to companies to reshore and bring back jobs that might have been moved abroad earlier to places such as China, Mexico or India. In 2006 alone, U.S. manufacturers claimed $45 billion in foreign tax credit--a huge financial advantage to companies that have sent jobs to China, Mexico, and India.

Instead of promoting job growth, U.S. tax policy rewards those companies for outsourcing. That is why we need to end the backward practices that allow businesses to deduct from their taxes the cost of shipping jobs overseas. We need to turn our Tax Code right side up when it comes to U.S. jobs by promoting their creation and discouraging their elimination. That is what the business bill does, and it is about time.

One of the things that happened out of the auto rescue is a bit of an untold story. It has to do with an assembly plant in Toledo, OH, where the Wrangler and Liberty are put together. Prior to the auto rescue, only 50 percent of the components at the Chrysler Jeep plant were made in the United States. Today, 75 percent of those components are made in the United States. The glass comes out of Crestline and the seats come from Northwood. Much of the rest of the Jeep Wrangler comes from suppliers in Ohio and Michigan. Those are American jobs, and it is a huge increase in American jobs when we consider three-fourths of those components are made in the United States, when only 3 years ago it was half those components.

Those Jeeps are selling, as is the Chevy Cruze that is made in Youngstown, OH. The components come from Ohio, Michigan and others States and manufacturing plants. It makes a huge difference in building a middle-class society.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jennifer Parsons, a member of my staff, be granted floor privileges during today's session of the Senate.

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

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

Madam President, I rise because the pending proposal to grant permanent normal trade relations with Russia must be done right. It was voted out of the Finance Committee today. There is discussion about further changes in the legislation on the Senate floor when it reaches here.

People in my home State of Ohio know too well that we cannot afford to continue our normal, business-as-usual trade agreements that fail to hold our trading partners responsible.

We know what happened in the early 1990s with the North American Free Trade Agreement. We know what happened in the late 1990s with the permanent normal trade relations with China. Look at the most recent events around the U.S. Olympic Committee and these American athletes, with hundreds and hundreds of them soon to parade down the streets in London, England, wearing clothes made in China. If that does not tell somebody about our trade relations with China.

We need to do it right because we know what happened not too many years ago with the Central American Free Trade Agreement, so-called CAFTA. The American people recognize that.

Too often we have allowed countries to violate their trade commitments with detrimental consequences to our own industries, especially our manufacturing.

Between 2000 and 2010, we lost one-third of our manufacturing jobs in this country. More than 5 million manufacturing jobs disappeared. Madam President, 60,000 plants closed. That is not by accident. That globalization evolved that way. It was because of trade law and tax law in our country that gave incentives in far too many cases for companies to shut down in the United States and move overseas.

We know a number of large American businesses have decided their business plan is to shut down production in Sandusky or Hamilton, OH, and to move production to Shihan or Wuhan, China and sell those products back into the United States of America.

Never, to my knowledge, in world history has a large number of companies in one country put together a business plan such as that: Shut down production in the home country, move it overseas, and sell back those products into the home country. By and large, it has not worked for our country. Part of the result is a diminished middle class with stagnant wages.

That is what we need to make sure we understand as we go, with eyes wide open, into this PNTR with Russia.

Too often we compromise our values in these trade agreements, we compromise our commitment to upholding human rights.

Granting Russia PNTR status without oversight is another such deal in the making. We have a responsibility to American steelmakers and welders, the companies and the workers, the small manufacturers and the employees, the engineers, the laborers, all of them, to get it right this time.

I want more trade, and this is not just about Russia. This is about America's trade policy, America's workers, American job creation. This is about the guy in Zanesville who made big things with his hands for years and now has gone from $17 an hour to $11 an hour--and still has to provide for his family.

It is just this simple: enforcement and accountability must be at the heart of our trade commitments with every single country in the world.

Granting Russia PNTR; that is, granting Russia permanent normal trade relations, is important for U.S. businesses. It could be a major step toward boosting exports of machinery, aerospace products, and other manufactured goods. I get that. I support that. It could be helpful to Ohioans who produce nearly 328 million pounds of chicken. It could be helpful to hog farmers around Johnstown, OH, and pork producers throughout Ohio and throughout the United States.

But we need to ensure our manufacturers, our ranchers, and our producers are not economically hogtied, if you will, by our trading partners. U.S. workers have learned the hard way that promises about strict enforcement simply do not go far enough and are simply too often empty.

A decade of experience with China's failure to abide by its WTO commitments has provided ample evidence that we must strengthen our enforcement regime.

How many Senators who voted for permanent normal trade relations with China, how many Congress men and women who voted for permanent normal trade relations with China have come to the floor and complained about China breaking the rules? They have attacked China because China cheats. They have complained to China on the Senate floor. They have gone to the International Trade Commission saying China is not playing by the rules. Yet they voted for PNTR a dozen years ago.

But put that aside, make up for it by passing a Russian PNTR that has real commitments, has real language, not just for reporting language but for enforcement language.

After 10 years, after hundreds of thousands of American jobs lost, we are seeing the same arguments we saw for PNTR made in support of granting Russia WTO membership.

Our experience with China has shown we must ensure that our trading partners follow through on their commitments. Our workers, our farmers, our ranchers, our producers, our manufacturers should have confidence that if a trade deal is signed, it will actually be enforced.

We cannot afford another one-way trade agreement because one-way trade agreements tend to lead to one-way job movements--companies shutting down here, manufacturing somewhere else, and selling back into the United States.

That is why we must have oversight. We must have mechanisms in place to ensure that Russia adheres to its commitments.

We must learn from the Chinese case.

Our PNTR with China caused huge damage to our country and manufacturing job loss. From the implementation of PNTR--passed in 1999, begun in

2000--accession to the World Trade Organization, around then for China, we saw what happened with job loss.

I mentioned a minute ago, between 2000 and 2010, we lost one-third of our manufacturing jobs in this country, more than 5 million jobs. We lost 60,000 plants in this country--not entirely because of China not playing fair, not entirely because of PNTR, not even entirely because of PNTR with China and the North American Free Trade Agreement.

It is our tax law. It is our trade law. It is our unwillingness or inability to enforce these trade rules. All that has conspired for this job loss.

Since 2010, I might add--because of the auto rescue and some other things--we have gained back one-half million manufacturing jobs. Ten years of manufacturing job loss; since the auto rescue, 500,000 manufacturing job gains.

We have to have monitoring. We have to have appropriate consequences in place when these rules are violated. If we repeat our mistakes of the past--from the lessons we should have learned from China--we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

My bill, the Russian World Trade Organization Commitments Verification Act of 2012, would help ensure Russia abides by the schedules set out in its WTO terms of accession.

Russia said it is going to do A, B, C, D, and E. So did China. The point is, we need not just reporting language about evaluating--did they do A, B, C, D, and E--but we need enforcement mechanisms. So if they do A and they do not do B, then the administration or the House or the Senate or we individually can begin to bring some actions against Russia for not following these rules.

We accomplish this by requiring USTR to report to Congress annually on how Russia is adhering to the commitments it made as part of joining the World Trade Organization.

If Russia fails to comply--and here is what our language does differently from what we have done in the past; learning from what happened with China--if Russia fails to comply, the U.S. Trade Representative will be required--required, not an optional thing because we see how Trade Representatives, particularly during the Bush years, acted on these kinds of problems--the U.S. Trade Representative will be required to explain what the administration is doing about it. If the administration does nothing, my bill clarifies that Congress can request that the administration take action.

It is commonsense accountability. It has been lacking in our trade enforcement.

This is an American issue. We can solve it together. We can solve it bipartisanly. We can solve it because it is an issue in all regions of our country.

President Reagan once said about Russia we must ``trust, but verify.'' He was actually talking about the old days of the Soviet Union. The same applies today--``trust but verify.'' Bring the reporting requirements forward. Bring accountability forward. It will matter for American jobs, for American manufacturers, for a middle- class standard of living for so many in our country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is not a shareholder democracy when a $10 million corporate buy effectively drowns out the $5 to $10 to $20 donation that represents real people with real concerns. The DISCLOSE Act would make CEOs do what political candidates do--what we all do--when we pay for political advertising: face the camera and tell the voters we sponsored a commercial. Whether we are Democrat or Republican, surely, we wouldn't want to see our political system, our democratic system, become the puppet of a few large corporations with whatever interest they have--oil or big insurance or drug companies or companies that outsource jobs as their specialty.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I think Senator Menendez asked the right question in the absence of this Chamber doing the right thing, and that is staying consistent with what the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, said some years ago. He said that sunlight is the best disinfectant and that we should disclose everything. He wanted unlimited--mostly, I believe, if I recall, unlimited contributions but full disclosure. He has changed his position. I assume it is to protect the oil industry and perhaps the Chinese money that is coming in in these elections or the big Wall Street banks that have opposed my election, as well as the Presiding Officer because of his work on banking issues, and will come in against him in Oregon.

I stand behind this idea Senator Menendez suggested, which is that if the Senate won't move, voters will start asking the question, Who is giving this money, and why are they putting in this kind of money?

I rise--and I thank Senator Shaheen for her leadership--because big corporations and wealthy investors are flooding our elections with campaign money. They are looking for gain. We don't really know whom the money is from. We can guess. In my State, we think it is oil companies. We think it is Wall Street banks. We think it could be money from Chinese interests, whether it is money laundered from China through American corporations or directly from American corporations that specialize in outsourcing jobs to China and making more money. Look what happened with the Olympics just recently, if that doesn't sort of beg the question.

We know that these dollars in Ohio are drowning out the voices of working middle-class people in my State and

across the country. Consider this: The television market in Cleveland, OH, is the 18th largest media market in the country.

Lots of cities come to mind that are larger: Philadelphia, Houston, Detroit, New York, Chicago, L.A., San Francisco, Washington, DC, Boston. Many cities, many media markets are larger than Cleveland, the 18th largest television market in the country, which includes about 1.5 million viewers. Cleveland is now No. 2 ranked in the country in political spending--again, larger than New York and Chicago and Philadelphia and Houston and San Diego. Only Los Angeles has had more money spent in its TV market than has Cleveland.

The Columbus market--still significant but smaller than Cleveland's-- is not far behind in political spending.

Why is that? The Presidential race in Ohio; the Senate race in Ohio; a congressional race in Ohio with two incumbents, one a Democrat and one a Republican, facing off, with most of the money spent by special interest groups; undisclosed, secret money on Cleveland television and Columbus television, mostly against candidates, mostly against incumbents, mostly against people who have a history of standing for the middle class against oil company interests, who have a history of standing for jobs and against bad trade agreements where companies outsource to China--which they benefit from--standing for Wall Street banks that have done significant damage to our country and to our economy.

We do not know for sure where this money comes from. They will not disclose it. The people paying for these ads are simply unwilling to step out of the shadows. It is not hard to guess, but we simply cannot prove it.

At the same time, as to all these ads that have come into Cleveland and have come into Columbus and all over my State, nonpartisan fact- check organizations have discovered that many of these ads in my State are false. They have a rating--they have a ``true,'' ``mostly true,'' ``mostly false,'' ``false,'' and the worst rating is ``pants on fire.'' ``Pants on fire'' suggests that people running these ads or groups making these statements willfully disregard the truth or, to put it more succinctly, simply lie. We are seeing, in many of these ads that are run by these special interest groups, they are simply lying. They get a ``false'' or they get a ``pants on fire'' rating from PolitiFact, a national organization which won the Pulitzer Prize, is nonpartisan, and has no partisan leanings, no ideological leanings.

It is no surprise people paying for these ads do not want to be associated with them. If they are an oil company, they do not want the public to know how they are lying. If they are an American corporation that outsources to China, they do not want the American people to know they are the ones paying for these ads and lying.

That is why this legislation is so important. These wealthy, unnamed, out-of-State donors can get away with this--we know this by now-- because the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision sweeps aside decades' worth of established jurisprudence and allows corporations and very wealthy individuals to spend as much as they like to defeat politicians who do not do their bidding.

Big businesses and billionaires should not be able to buy elections and citizens should know who is behind the ads aimed at winning their votes.

In one of his fireside chats--in a very different political environment, with very different media available to them--President Franklin Roosevelt said the ``use of power by any group, however situated, to force its interest or to use its strategic position in order to receive more from the common fund than its contribution to the common fund justifies, is an attack against and not an aid to our national life.''

In a nutshell, President Roosevelt said--he could have been speaking to this issue today--that he called them the ``malefactors of great wealth.'' He called them ``economic royals.'' He called them a lot of things--very wealthy people who had disproportionate influence on their national government, even with a President who was fighting for the middle class, who was fighting for the common man against these interest groups.

That is why the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act, the DISCLOSE Act, matters. We need to pass this bill.

The DISCLOSE Act would ensure greater accountability and transparency in corporate political spending by requiring the disclosure of campaign-related fundraising and spending by outside groups.

Over the course of the past 2 years, we have seen politics increasingly influenced by millionaires and billionaires who secretly give unlimited amounts of money to manipulate American politics. These multimillionaires are trying to secretly buy elections.

The DISCLOSE Act would prevent these corporations and wealthy individuals from using shell front groups to hide their donations from disclosure.

By giving millions of dollars in secret money, these megadonors are looking to cash in on policies that will benefit their business interests.

I do not want to make this about my State. I mentioned the huge money in Cleveland, the huge money in Columbus. We are seeing it in the Toledo market. We are seeing it in the Dayton market, the Cincinnati market, the Youngstown market, even those TV markets on the periphery of the State that serve other States: Wheeling, WV, Parkersburg, WV, Charleston, Huntington, WV, Fort Wayne, IN--States where you might buy the television time that Ohioans will see.

I do not want to make this about my campaign. In my campaign, we have seen already, in Ohio, $2.5 million in special interest money, laundered--and I use that term advisedly--laundered through groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, laundered through groups such as Crossroads--that is the group associated with George Bush's political director, whatever his title was--money coming through 60 Plus, money laundered through Concerned Women for America--who decidedly are not, I might add--money laundered through all kinds of organizations; undisclosed, secret money that comes in and does attack ads against elected officials.

I can stand on my own. I am not all that concerned about what it means to me. I am concerned that those groups, undisclosed, want to buy elections. Do you know why they want to buy elections? They want to buy elections so they can continue the subsidies they get and the tax break for the oil companies. They want to buy elections so they can continue to outsource jobs to China and write trade rules that make it easier and more profitable to do that. They want to buy elections because they want to stop our efforts to force the six largest banks in the country--the Wall Street banks--to divest some of their earnings. They are not just too big to fail, they are also too big to manage and too big to regulate.

They want to buy elections, these outside groups, because they want to continue the preferential treatment they get in this Congress when they are drug companies and to stop generic drugs and to stop negotiation directly with the drug companies to save money for seniors for their pharmaceutical drugs.

That is what they have at stake--always, frankly, against the public interest, always an attack on the middle class, always an assault on people who simply want an opportunity to get ahead in this country-- just an opportunity, not a gift, not a handout but an opportunity to go to college, an opportunity to go to the local--to go to Lorain County Community College, an opportunity to go to school and be able to pay back their loans, an opportunity to get a decent job and stay in the town they grew up in so they can raise children around their grandparents--all the kinds of things most Americans agree with.

The DISCLOSE Act would prevent these corporations from continuing to deceive the public and simply not informing the public of what is happening. Their priorities erode protections and safeguards for middle-class workers and their families. They seek to extend tax shelters for the top 1 percent. This is not just an attack on the integrity of our democracy. That is fundamentally what it is, but that is not why they do it. They do it because it is a direct assault on middle-class families and working Americans.

The 1 percent will do increasingly better because of Citizens United. The 1

percent is mostly behind these efforts and mostly behind the efforts to defeat the DISCLOSE Act.

Democracy demands openness in the public square, in our public conversations, and in that most sacred democratic tool: our elections. Under Citizens United, what we have is a sale--not a democracy--it is an auction going to the highest bidder. It is not an election.

Our Nation's highest Court took an issue that was not even presented to the Court and decided to overturn a century of legal precedent. Our largest companies straddle the globe. They wield enormous influence already. The top Fortune 500 companies reap billions in profits. The average Ohio household struggles to break even, as does the average household from Senator Whitehouse's Rhode Island and Senator Shaheen's New Hampshire.

The largest corporations leverage their enormous economic power into seemingly unchecked political clout.

In 2011, corporations spent $3.3 billion lobbying Congress to influence legislation--$3.3 billion to lobby Congress--exerting far more influence on our political process than they should.

We know they spent this $3.3 billion because they were required by law to disclose what they spent. My guess is, if that law did not exist that they had to disclose what they were spending on lobbying, some of my colleagues would vote against disclosure for them, what they are spending to influence elections. So they spend $3.3 billion to lobby. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars on elections. They work to repeal and roll back voter rights.

I will wrap up. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.

We have no idea, though, what these groups are spending as they try to undermine our electoral system. What we know is that corporations and roving--if I could use that word--front groups are already pouring hundreds of millions into campaigns.

The DISCLOSE Act can help clear these murky waters. The question ultimately is, if we cannot pass this, then our citizens need to ask us: Why are they spending all this money? Who are these people spending this money? Who is spending it? Why are they spending tens of millions in my State and other States around the country? What is it they want? When voters start asking that question, I think the answer will be pretty self-evident.

I thank Senator Whitehouse and Senator Shaheen for their work on this issue.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I rise to address a problem facing too many communities across the country, including small towns and big cities, suburbs and remote rural areas.

Servicemembers who have risked their lives protecting our Nation shouldn't have to wonder whether they will be able to find a job when they leave the service. Unfortunately, far too many do.

On Monday, I was in Youngstown in northeast Ohio speaking to Army veteran Pedro Colon. He is one of the first Mahoning County area veterans to be approved for VRAP.

VRAP is a particularly important program for veterans in this country. It stands for Veterans Retraining Assistance Program. We just authorized it under the VOW to Hire Heroes Act. I am the first Ohio Senator ever to sit on the Veterans' Committee for a full term, and I take that responsibility seriously. One of the outreach training efforts put together by Senator Murray in the Veterans' Committee is