Floor Statements

Madam President, in 25 days, the cost of attending college, a trade school, a university, or a 2-year community college will increase for some 380,000 students in my State of Ohio. It is because without congressional action--something which we have tried to fix repeatedly on the floor of the Senate--interest rates for Stafford loans are scheduled to double on July 1.

Now, this was done 5 years ago. Bipartisanly, we were able to do this. President Bush signed legislation by a Democratic Congress--a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate--to freeze interest rates on Stafford subsidized loans for American college students for 5 years at 3.4 percent. That expires July 1, and it is something we need to do, we have tried to do. It has repeatedly been batted down by threats of a filibuster.

That is why today I met with students in Toledo, at Owens Community College. Jakki, CJ, and Megan all have dreams to attend, first, Owens, and then to move on to 4-year institutions. But they rely on Stafford loans to afford their tuition and other expenses.

I have been to Cuyahoga County Community College meeting with students. I have been to Hiram College visiting students on their graduation day. I have been to the University of Cincinnati. I have been to Ohio State. I have been to Wright State University in Dayton speaking to students.

They understand if we do not act, future college graduates will see an average of about $1,000 in extra interest fees per student per Stafford loan.

My colleague Jack Reed, a Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Harkin, and I have introduced the Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act, which would keep college affordable for more students.

The act is fully paid for by closing a corporate tax loophole. We want to pay for this. We do not want to add to the debt of college students. We do not want to add to their personal debt by allowing this 3.4-percent interest rate to double.

I would like to make this more personal, if I could, and read some letters from students in Ohio schools. These higher interest rates affect students personally, of course. It also affects the families who are helping to pay for their college tuition in many cases. It also affects the community. We know, looking back at the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, the GI bill enabled literally millions of individuals--millions of young Americans who had fought for their country in World War II or Korea or in successive military involvements--to go to school and to afford their college tuition. What that meant was not just helping those students and their families. It helped raise the level of prosperity for the entire country because those were people who got to go to school. It meant they could start businesses and buy homes and get better jobs and give back a lot to our communities.

That is the same thing that will happen if we can lock in these 3.4- percent interest rates. It will mean students who might not have been able to buy a car or might not have been able to start a business or might have been more reluctant to start a family--they are less likely to do that if we cannot lock in these interest rates.

Before yielding the floor to Senator Inhofe, I would like to share three letters my office received recently, starting with Kasey from Union in Miami County, OH. Miami County is just north of Dayton.

Going to college was never a question for me--there was an

unspoken understanding that it would happen.

Unfortunately, my parents could not afford to pay for

college for all of their children, particularly after [we

faced] foreclosure in 2007.

At 17, I faced responsibility for covering the $10,000 per

year gap of paying for George Washington University.

Over the past four years, I have taken out the maximum

allowed in student loans--both subsidized and unsubsidized. I

have held a federal work study job since October of my

freshman year. Because both of my parents were unemployed at

the time, I was forced to take out PLUS loans. This still

left me with a gap, and I had to ask my parents to spend a

significant portion of their retirement fund to allow me to

finish my degree.

At 21 years old, I have more than $42,000 in loans to

repay. I have received a world class education thanks to the

opportunities provided to me by my scholarships, student

loans, Pell grants and federal work study programs.

Students should not be punished for following the American

Dream. There is a huge emphasis on the importance of

education, but the soaring costs of private and public

universities is making it harder and harder for my

generation.

Doubling the interest rates on loans is not the solution.

Making education harder to pay for will shut doors for

students like me, and college will inch back toward being a

privilege of the wealthy.

I have worked part time since I was 15, I did well in high

school to win a substantial scholarship, I have maintained my

grades in college to keep that scholarship, I have taken

advantage of work study programs, and I have every intention

of paying back my student loans in full as I enter the world

of full time employment.

Please do not make it harder to pursue the American Dream.

Waylon from Fairborn, Greene County, near Springfield. The city of Xenia is nearby, outside of Dayton.

I am deeply concerned about the thought of an increase in

student loan interest.

I am currently a student at Antioch University Midwest

taking classes to pursue my license to become an Intervention

Specialist. I also have two children who are finishing up

their sophomore years in college at the end of May.

My sons, as well as myself, have student loan debt and an

increase in the rates would certainly have a diminishing

affect on affording an already higher tuition rate at the

college itself.

Hasn't it been a big push for the people in our country to

become more educated equating to a more resourceful and

competitive country?

How will this ever be attained without an affordable

education?

Gaining higher, more competitively paying jobs would also

equate to more taxes being paid!

Isn't that what we should be looking at?

I believe that there is a disconnection between what people

in Washington want--a more educated country and how they are

willing to get it.

Sarah, from Dayton, writes:

I started college in fall 2003. As a foster youth fresh

from emancipating, I took out student loans because I don't

have any family that can help me pay for college.

9 years, 2 Bachelor of Arts (one in Criminal Justice and

the other in Social Science Education . . . ) and an almost

complete Master of Arts degree later not only am I $100,000

in debt with student loans I am still unable to find a job.

Since I am overqualified for jobs at places like McDonald's

(who take one look at my application and reject it) and

underqualified for positions using either of my degrees, I am

forced to look outside of Ohio for jobs that will allow me to

at least use my 1 2 years of secretary experience so that I

have the salary to start paying on these loans.

My student loans are hindering not only my ability to

possibly finish my Master's degree but also to potentially

purchase a home and find a position near my family.

When I graduate I will not be able to move back home since

my parents were the state so I will have to find a position

outside what I went to school for and probably for minimum

salary or even minimum wage just so

I do not end up homeless. I may even have to look overseas to

find work.

I have hopes that the government will see stories like mine

from people who have risen above their circumstances and are

able to go to college to make their lives better and not be

statistics and actually do something to help us.

These stories, obviously, speak for themselves. We are certainly leaving our children with far too much debt. Ten years ago we had a budget surplus, until this government--the House and Senate and the President in the last decade--made terrible mistakes and blew a hole in the Federal budget. We do not want to also leave them increased debt from student loans. My wife was the first person in her family to go to college, to Kent State University. She graduated with almost no debt, even though her family was not really able to help her much, because the State government was more involved, the Federal Government was more involved, and tuition was lower.

It is a moral question to me to make sure we can freeze these interest rates. We have no business saddling a more onerous debt burden on the young men and women of our country.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 462 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Madam President, I further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., on Tuesday, June 5; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and the majority leader be recognized; that following the remarks of the majority leader and those of the Republican leader, 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 30 minutes and the Republicans controlling the second 30 minutes; further, that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 to allow for the weekly caucus meetings.

It is the majority leader's intention to resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3220, the Paycheck Fairness Act, when the Senate convenes tomorrow. At 2:15 there will be a cloture vote on the motion to proceed 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 previous order following the remarks of Senator Inhofe.

Mr. President, throughout the month of May, we celebrate Jewish Heritage Month, a time to reflect upon and celebrate those who have helped shape Jewish culture and the shared American experience. Since arriving on the shores of New Amsterdam in 1654, the men and women of the Jewish faith have worked to promote opportunity, justice, and equality for all.

In communities across the United States, public service, social action, and charity are rooted in both the religious and cultural components of Judaism.

Every day, members of Ohio's Jewish community make contributions that better the lives of their families, friends, and cities. While so many of these men and women deserve our praise and gratitude, I would like to highlight a few leaders within the Ohio Jewish community both past and present.

Dr. Albert Sabin, a pioneer in the field of medicine, called Cincinnati, OH home. While a professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Dr. Sabin developed and perfected the oral polio vaccine. In 1960, after extensive preliminary trials, Dr. Sabin's oral polio vaccine was first used in Europe.

Between the years of 1962 and 1964, nearly 100 million people-- children and adults--benefited from this vaccine in the United States. Dr. Sabin's contributions to the field of medical research saved countless lives from the ravages of polio and in the process, shaped modern vaccine study. It is no exaggeration to say that his efforts bettered and saved the lives of millions worldwide.

The success of Dr. Sabin clearly reflects Jewish values a commitment to social justice and a desire to work towards bettering society.

Such values are also extremely evident in the work of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel. Born in Poland in 1907 and deported by the Nazi's in 1938, he was rescued and brought to the United States by Cincinnati's Hebrew Union College. Both an activist and religious leader, Rabbi Heschel played a powerful role in forging the bonds of faith, social action, and civil rights. In 1965, Rabbi Heschel marched arm-in-arm with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., in Selma in support of the civil rights movement. Following this experience, he spoke the iconic words: ``I felt my feet were praying.''

Just 3 years later, on March 25, 1968--10 days before that fateful day in Memphis, TN--Rabbi Heschel introduced Dr. King to the 68th Annual Convention of the Rabbinical Assembly. Rabbi Heschel closed his introduction by saying, ``The situation of the poor in America is our plight, our sickness. To be deaf to their cry is to condemn ourselves.''

Dr. King began his opening statement by saying, ``I have heard `We Shall Overcome' probably more than I have heard any other song over the last few years. It is something of the theme song for our struggle. But tonight was the first time that I ever heard it in Hebrew, what a beautiful experience for me.''

Rabbi Heschel's legacy is carried on by his daughter, Dr. Susannah Heschel, a professor of Jewish studies at Dartmouth College. I was proud to join Dr. Heschel at a series of events we conducted in Ohio to celebrate her father's legacy and to discuss the future of social action and civil rights.

Another resident of Ohio who had a tremendous impact on Jewish heritage is Samuel Melton. Born in Austria-Hungary in 1900, Melton was just 4 years old when he and his mother joined his father in Toledo,

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business for no more than 10 minutes.

Mr. President, last week the Vice President was in my State in the Mahoning Valley, in the Youngstown area, northeast Ohio. He saw what I have been seeing in my State for the last several months, and he heard what I have been hearing from so many Ohioans in the last several months. He went to the Lordstown auto assembly plant, which assembles the Chevy Cruze. He saw what we have been seeing in my State, where manufacturing finally is coming back.

From early 2000 to January 2010, about a 10-year period, the manufacturing sector in this country lost a huge number of jobs--more than 5 million jobs. In the 35 years before that, manufacturing jobs in this country were pretty constant, up and down. In 1997 or 1998, we had about the same number of manufacturing jobs in America that we had in 1965--a smaller percentage of the workforce, or smaller percentage of GDP, perhaps, but roughly the same number of jobs. From January of 2000 to January of 2010, some estimates were as high as one-third of our manufacturing jobs. We know there were at least 5 million jobs and some 60,000 plant closings in that 10-year period, from 2000 to 2010. It is almost impossible not to ascribe at least part of that to trade policy and tax policy--a tax policy that far too often has given manufacturing companies an incentive to shut down and move overseas. If you shut down a plant in Warren, OH, or Mansfield, OH, or Springfield, OH, and move to Wuhan or Zihan or Shanghai, you can deduct the moving expenses and save on your Federal taxes. It is hard to do anything but to ascribe at least a part of that to some of the trade agreements we have signed, such as NAFTA, which the President pushed through Congress. And it was both parties. I was just as critical of President Clinton for NAFTA as I was President Bush on CAFTA.

We know what the Central American Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement have meant, and we know what PNTR with China did, where we went from not much more than a $10 billion trade deficit in 2000 to trade deficits that were, I believe, $10 billion to $15 billion a month with China later in the decade. And we know from the policy of tax cuts that went overwhelmingly to the wealthiest Americans that passed in 2001 and 2003, going into two wars and not paying for those, a Medicare drug law that in the name of privatization basically gave away huge incentives to the drug and insurance companies--all that played into an economic policy that didn't work for the American people. We lost more than 5 million manufacturing jobs, with 60,000 plant closings between 2000 and 2010.

What happened in 2009 and 2010 to finally turn that around? The House and Senate and the President of the United States rescued the auto industry. We know the kind of job loss we were seeing and now look at what we have. It is not great yet. We are not seeing a huge growth in manufacturing, but almost every single month since early 2010, in Ohio and across the country, we are seeing job growth in manufacturing. So far, since early 2010, after that 5 million jobs lost in manufacturing--from early 2000 to early 2010--we have seen a 400,000- plus net job increase in these 2-plus years. Again, that is too anemic--it is not enough--but it is the direction we need to go.

Let me give a couple of examples as to why this auto rescue meant so much to my State and the rest of America. The Jeep Wrangler and the Jeep Liberty are assembled in Toledo, OH. Prior to the auto rescue, these workers assembled the Wrangler and the Liberty with only 50 percent American-made components. After the auto rescue--today--about 75 percent of the components that go into the Wrangler and the Jeep Liberty--assembled in Toledo, OH--come from components made in the United States.

Look at what has happened in Lordstown, OH. The engine is made in Defiance, OH, the bumper comes from Northwood, OH, the transmission comes from Toledo, the speaker system comes from Springboro, OH, the steel comes from Cleveland and Middletown, OH, the aluminum comes from Cleveland, OH, the stamping is done in Parma, OH, and this is put together--all these parts come together in Lordstown, OH, near Youngstown, assembled by 5,000 workers on three shifts. Almost none of that would have happened without the auto rescue.

Do you know what else the auto rescue was all about? It didn't just help Chrysler and GM, which had, in fact, gone into bankruptcy. The auto rescue was also supported by Ford and Honda in my State. We have huge Ford and Honda investments in my State. Why

would they have supported the auto rescue when the support from the government--the loans from the government, if you will--went to Chrysler and GM, not to Ford and Honda? Because they knew the importance of the supply chain. Because the supply chain for Chrysler and GM had collapsed, as it would have if those two companies had gone into bankruptcy and not been restructured and financed so they could come out of bankruptcy. If that had happened, the supply chain for Ford and Honda also would have partially collapsed. We see evidence of that in what happened with the tsunami in Japan, where Honda and others had to shut down for a period of time because they couldn't get the supply components they needed--some of them--from Japan.

So the point is that we stepped in with the auto rescue not just for Chrysler and GM, not just for Honda and Ford in my State--where 800,000 jobs, it is officially estimated, are affiliated with the auto industry--but also because it was important for these jobs at our tier 1 suppliers. Some of these tier 1 suppliers were about to collapse. So the rescue of the auto industry also directly helped to rescue some of those tier 1 suppliers. I have seen those tier 1 suppliers--Magnum in a suburb of Toledo. I have been there; Johnson Controls, which makes seats in Warren, OH--they make seats for the Chevy Cruze. I left that one out. All those tier 1 suppliers were in trouble.

We also knew the tier 2, 3, and 4 suppliers for the auto industry-- making components you might not know what they were for or recognize them if you held them in your hands but that go into the Chrysler and the Ford and the GM and the Honda--were not able to get financing many times, and so we helped them through that with the auto rescue.

So the point is that what Vice President Biden saw in Youngstown and in Lordstown, OH, and what I hear in Dayton and Columbus and Mansfield and in Toledo and Rossford and Parma and all over my State is these workers saying they understand this auto rescue, where the government invested because nobody else would have--these companies are paying these investments, and that rescue saved all these jobs. It is why manufacturing is beginning to turn around.

There are other factors, of course, and one of them is the President of the United States enforcing trade law. We see a new steel mill in Youngstown in part because the President stood up to the Chinese and enforced trade law when the Chinese were gaming the system on something called oil country tubular steel, used in drilling for oil and for natural gas. All of that has mattered to this manufacturing job growth.

We are not there yet. We need the administration to step up on a real policy for manufacturing, a real strategy. I think they are starting to do that on better tax law, better trade law, and better enforcement of trade laws. We want to assist manufacturing when we can partner with them--not picking winners and losers but understanding that to create wealth, you either grow it, you mine it, or you make it. My State does all three and does it very well and will continue to do so with this kind of partnership as we move forward.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, May 23; 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; that the first hour following the remarks of the majority leader and Republican leader be equally divided and controlled between the two sides, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half; further, that the majority control the time from 1 p.m. until 2 p.m.

Mr. President, it is the majority leader's intention to resume consideration of S. 3187, the FDA user fees bill, when the Senate convenes tomorrow. We are working on an agreement for amendments to the bill. We hope we can reach an agreement and avoid filing cloture on the bill.

Mr. President, if there is no business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Madam President, I wish to reiterate and underscore the words of my colleague, the senior Senator from New York, about how important the tightening of the Iran sanctions are to Israel, to the United States of America, and to the stability of the world. Allowing nuclear weapons in the hands of a country as unstable as Iran and which is hostile to so many of our values and which is hostile to most people in the world--not just the United States, not just Israel, not just the democratic world--how problematic this is for the entire world. That is why I am pleased with the work Chairman Johnson did, along with Ranking Member Shelby, Senator Menendez, Senator Graham, and others, so that this continues to send an important message to Iran that we will continue to increasingly tighten sanctions threatening to Iran and the stability of its economy, and helping Iran to understand that this will create difficulties for that regime in having any support of its people with the economic consequences that could happen as we tighten sanctions.

As Senator McCain said, we will take nothing off the table. We want a diplomatic solution with these sanctions. We want Iran to recognize it is in their interests not to have nuclear weapons. That is the best thing for all of us, but, again, taking nothing off the table.

Madam President, I rise to bring attention to a problem plaguing many aging communities in Ohio and throughout the industrial Midwest. We in this country have a rich manufacturing heritage, none richer than Ohio. We are the third leading manufacturing State in the country, trailing only in production, and trailing only States two and three times our size--Texas and California. We have built an infrastructure in this country that defined the landscape of the modern world.

At Ohio plants in places such as Middletown and Youngstown, Ohioans made steel beams that built America's skyscrapers, railroads, and bridges. And at lead smelter sites from Cleveland to Cincinnati, OH, workers processed metal to shore up the economic foundation of 20th century America. But as revealed in a disturbing series of recent reports in USA TODAY, former lead smelter plants have left behind a terrible legacy: elevated lead levels in the soil and in the air and surrounding playgrounds and schools, especially in poorer areas of our cities. Many of these potentially contaminated places are in underresourced, aging areas where homes are not necessarily in good shape and where neighborhoods are plagued with many other problems as well.

Yesterday I met with Angelina and Ken Shefton in Cleveland at a property that is within breathing distance of an old lead smelter site. What is even more troubling is that they didn't even know this existed. They are parents of five. One of their sons was recently diagnosed with elevated blood lead levels. They fear for the other four children also. Parents such as them and thousands of Ohioans living in communities with aging and abandoned industrial sites are worried about the health and safety of their families.

A national newspaper report found that lead levels in soil near this smelter plant in Cleveland exceed 3,400 parts per million. The average lead level in U.S. soils is only 19 parts per million.

As a father and grandfather, I am particularly disturbed by these reports. We know that lead is not broken down when it lingers in the ground. It can enter our groundwater and children can absorb it on the baseball diamond or while making mud pies in the yard.

For too long regulators have overlooked or neglected to fully investigate toxic sites in our communities. That is why I am urging the Federal Government to take action. I have called on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to hold a hearing on what we can do to address this issue. We need to prioritize testing our schools and playgrounds in those neighborhoods close to abandoned sites.

I am asking the EPA to take immediate action to review sites that have not yet been tested. But that is not enough. After the results come in, we need to take action to clean up residual contamination.

Last week the CDC lowered by half the recommended allowable limit for lead exposure to young children, so we must ramp up our efforts to address the problem lingering in our soil. We need to address it now. Too many young lives are depending on our actions. Too many children in too many urban school districts suffer from behavior problems, suffer from intelligence problems, if you will, because they have had far too high lead levels in their blood which retard growth, restrict learning, and cause behavioral problems. It is a serious public health problem. It is the paint on the walls in these old homes, and it is the lead in the paint on the walls. It is the lead in the soil of the homes and neighborhoods and playgrounds. It does call for real action from State and Federal Governments and local communities.

I yield the floor.

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