Floor Statements

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 May 10, 2012, at 10 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

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 May 10, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 10, 2012, at 10 a.m. in room SD 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a roundtable entitled ``Medicare Physician Payments: Understanding the Past so We can Envision the Future.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 10, 2012, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``NATO: Chicago and Beyond.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Beyond Mother's Day: Helping the Middle Class Balance Work and Family'' on May 10, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room SD 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on May 10, 2012, at 10 a.m. in room SD 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 10, 2012, at 10 a.m.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Madam President, I come to the floor to share some letters I have received about the importance of freezing the 3.4 percent Stafford subsidized college loan program.

It is important because there are some 380,000 students in my home State of Ohio alone who are in the Stafford subsidized loan program. Many of them will see as they continue their college education--whether it is at Sinclair Community College in Dayton or Youngstown State or Hiram College--where their costs are continuing to go up. We know the average Ohio 4-year college graduate has about $27,000 in student loan debt. That is much higher than people had a decade ago or 20 years ago or 30 years ago or so when my generation was in college.

Federally subsidized student loans have been a reliable answer for so many in my State. I wish to encourage people to tell their stories. Some of my colleagues in the Senate are doing this also, but I urge people in Ohio to go to brown.senate.gov/collegeloanstories, and tell your story about how important this is.

The disappointment is that 5 years ago this was bipartisan. President Bush signed a bill that many of us here sponsored, in both parties, in a Democratic House, Democratic Senate, a good bipartisan support, signed by a Republican President to lock in for 5 years this 3.4 interest rate. If we do nothing, if we can't get our Republican colleagues to join us on this and then do the same in the House of Representatives to continue this 3.4-percent subsidized Stafford loan, it is going to mean that come July, the average college student will pay about $1,000 more for each year of college. That is unconscionable when college student loans are such a burden.

It means people who have these loans at this level, when they get out of school they are less likely to buy a house, less likely to start a family, less likely to start a business.

If people will bear with me, I wish to read four or five of these letters I have gotten on our Web site.

Nick from Beavercreek, OH:

I am a college student at Xavier University, Cincinnati,

Ohio studying chemistry and biology. I hope one day, through

my education in the sciences, that I might be able to make us

a stronger nation through innovation and technology.

The fact of the matter is that I would not be able to

pursue an education if it were not for student loans from the

Government.

On behalf of the future of science in this country, which

is in trouble already from what I hear, I urge you to reach a

bipartisan agreement that would prevent interest rates from

doubling.

It seems that student debt is unavoidable for the average

college student. College already is an expensive investment

that shapes our personal finances for the rest of our lives.

I ask that you, on behalf of those who are already burdened

by debt, to find a way to reach across the aisle on this one

and stop interest rates from rising.

I ask that you find a way to lighten our load. We would not

forget that if you did that for us. We would greatly

appreciate policy that opens up avenues to higher education

for ourselves as well as for those future seekers of such an

education.

Justin from Cincinnati, in Southwest Ohio:

I am the first person in my family to attend college and am

on track to completing my BS in experimental psychology. I

plan to go straight into a PHD program after I graduate and

the prospect of loan rates doubling is absolutely horrifying.

I work full time to be able to support myself but still

have about $15,000 in student loans. By no means does this

compare to others who have much more in loans but allowing

the interest rate to double is unacceptable and severely

limiting to individuals such as myself.

Lower tuition would boost the number of students attending

college making life better for everyone.

I don't suggest that everybody should go to college. I know everybody doesn't want to go to college. But I do know that people often need a technical education or a 4-year degree, a 2-year degree at a community college or a technical degree or a 4-year degree at a liberal arts school, a State university or a private school. The choices in my State are huge. We have literally dozens and dozens of small liberal arts schools and 4-year and 2-year community colleges and institutions of higher learning. Students should be allowed, if they choose, to be able to have access to college. Increasingly, it is more difficult for students to do that.

Lorie from West Jefferson, OH:

I am a full time working mother of three teenage boys as

well as a full time college student at Ohio Dominican

University.

I currently have over $40,000 in student loans. I still

have one more year to go before completing my program and

earning my Bachelor's degree.

By that time my loan amounts will probably be around $50K.

About the time I finish college, my oldest son will be

beginning college and the student loan process will begin

again.

He will be the first of three children that we will put

through college.

Listen to the definitive. She has decided she is going to make sure her kids get a chance to go to school right away. I don't know her, but apparently she didn't get a chance to go until she was older and became married, with children, and has decided to go back to school and is completing her education as her children reach their teens or mid-teens or upper teens.

Low interest rates would help make this a little less of a

financial burden for me and my family.

I do not see how raising interest rates on student loans do

anything but cripple those trying to better themselves.

The last couple I will read. Linda from Centerberg, OH:

We are grandparents of 5 children. We and our children are

middle class constituents who live in a rural area close

enough to Columbus to commute.

Please do not let the interest rate for the Stafford Loan

increase in July.

Our oldest grandchild is preparing to start college in the

fall. She is fourth in her class and shows great promise for

a good future in her chosen field, but our children are

finding that paying for college is really going to stretch

their budget.

Please don't put a further burden on our grandchild by

increasing the interest rate of a loan she may need to

finance her future.

So those last two are interesting in that this doesn't just affect college students; this affects the parents; it affects the grandparents. It is important that they don't want welfare. They just want an even shot and a break here. That is so important for this grandmother. People understand that this is going to help everybody if they get to go on to college.

The last one I will mention is Carla from Steubenville in eastern Ohio, near the Ohio River:

I am very concerned about the raising of interest rates for

student loans.

I am a mother in a middle class family working to help put

my sons through college.

I don't expect a handout but I have worked hard to acquire

my position as a teacher.

My husband and I have exhausted our savings to pay for most

of our sons' expenses--even with the support of subsidized

and unsubsidized loans.

I have put out over $80,000 in my eldest son's college.

Please, let's help those that help themselves. If not, then

the economy is going to continue to fail.

The middle class will go bankrupt just trying to pay for

their kids college.

I was taught to work and you shall receive but that is not

true anymore. Please help the working poor.

What I take out of this more than anything is back in the 1940s and 1950s our government, through legislation that President Roosevelt signed in 1944, the GI bill, created a whole generation of prosperity. Millions and millions of young men and women coming out of World War II were given the opportunity to go to college and build homes and get their families started.

Because government at one time helped these millions and millions of students, it lifted the entire country. It lifted the economy. We had a much more prosperous economy because all these young men and women went to college because they chose to--millions and millions of them-- because of the GI bill. It meant colleges were built. It meant more highways were built. It meant more businesses were started after they got out of college.

This subsidized Stafford Loan, as the Presiding Officer this afternoon knows, as we all know, helping all of the hundreds of thousands--in my State 380,000, in Minnesota more than 200,000 students--helping those hundreds of thousands of students in our two States will help our States become more prosperous.

Again, I urge my colleagues to support our legislation. Lock this in. Do it bipartisanly. It was bipartisan 5 years ago, as the highway bill used to be bipartisan, as raising the debt limit used to be bipartisan. Please return to those days when bipartisanship around here was rewarded and was effective.

I close by asking people to go to my Web site and tell us your story: brown.senate.gov/collegeloan stories. Tell us your story. I would like to share it with my colleagues because I think putting a human face on this for the student, for the parents who are struggling, even for the grandparents who care so much about the future, as most of our grandparents do, can make a real difference.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the same legislation, and I appreciate the work of Senator Murray and Senator Klobuchar.

I introduced this legislation with Senator Harkin of Iowa and Senator Reed of Rhode Island, and in the last couple of weeks I have been to the Cayuga County Community College, a community college in Cleveland, Ohio State University, Wright State University near Dayton, and the University of Cincinnati. There were student bodies, student government people in both political parties there. There is virtually universal support among students for this legislation. We have no business letting the interest rate double. The vote that will take place in less than 1 hour gives us an opportunity to help students in a huge way.

The average Ohio graduate of a 4-year university has a $27,000 student debt. If we are going to pile more

money on that debt by allowing the interest rate to go from 3.4 to 6.8 percent, it means that student is less likely to be able to buy a house, less likely to probably start a family, and less likely to be able to start a business. It saps wealth from our community. If we can keep this interest rate at 3.4 percent, it will pay dividends much more than the cost of this.

I would close by saying this was a bipartisan arrangement. Back in 2007, when Senator Klobuchar and I were in our first year in the Senate, President Bush signed legislation brought forward and passed by a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House, with Republican support. So it had broad bipartisan support to lock in 3.4 percent for 5 years. Why are people making it partisan now?

The fact is we should pass this legislation today. We should pay for it in a way by closing these tax loopholes that are called the Newt Gingrich-John Edwards tax loopholes, where both of them--Newt Gingrich, a Republican, and John Edwards, a Democrat--in their private sector lives have legally been able to avoid tens of thousands of dollars in taxes. Lobbying firms, consulting firms, all have used this loophole. Governor Romney wanted to close this loophole when he was Governor of Massachusetts. It is something we should move forward on and put the partisanship aside and pass this. This is good for individual students, just like the GI bill after World War II was good for millions of individual students. Look what it did for our society as a whole. It made us a richer country, a more prosperous country, a more egalitarian country. What is not to like about that? That is why we should pass this legislation.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent the time from 5:15 to 7 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees and that all quorum calls during that period also be equally divided.

Mr. President, I wish to follow up on Senator Schumer's call to action, if you will, because it appears that things that used to be bipartisan, whether it was the debt ceiling or the Transportation bill or a whole host of other things, has become far too partisan. Back in 2007, the Republican President and Democrats in the House and Senate and Republicans in the House and Senate--but Democratic majorities--froze interest rates for college loans, subsidized Stafford student loans at 3.4 percent for 5 years. All we want to do is we want to continue this. We want to continue it by closing a tax loophole. One political party that does not seem very enthusiastic about freezing these rates anyway seems to be standing in the way. I think the only way this is going to change is if students all over the country come and tell their stories.

They can come to my Web site, tell their stories about school financing and how difficult it has been for them. They can come to brown.senate.gov/collegeloanstories and tell us their stories.

This past week, I have been to a community college in Cleveland and I have been to Ohio State University in Columbus, Wright State University near Dayton, and the University of Cincinnati and heard many of these stories. I invite students around Ohio--we are asking for them to tell their personal stories. I think, in the end, personal stories will convince my colleagues they should not make this partisan. They should not stand in the way. They should work with us so we can freeze this student loan interest rate at 3.4 percent because I think it will matter.

In my State--and I know the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of the Presiding Officer, is not much different than that--the average 4-year student in Ohio who graduates has a $27,000 accumulated debt for their 4 years of college. That means those students will have more difficulty--probably will not be able to buy a home or probably will have to delay it, delay getting married or starting a business. I think it is very immoral for us to pile more debt on top of what they already have. If we want to build a prosperous society the way we did with the GI bill--the GI bill provided individual opportunity for millions of students in the 1940s and 1950s, young men and women returning from the war, and it not only helped those millions of students but lifted the country as a whole and created a more vibrant society because we helped so many individuals with the GI bill in those days. This is comparable to that--men and women who want to go to St. Clair Community College or want to go to the Mansfield Campus at Ohio State or want to go to Hiram College or Ohio University in Athens. They want to go to school. We cannot load this much debt onto them.

As we put this on our Web site, we expect students to write in and tell their stories. I know they will. We have five stories. I will share a couple of these for today and save a couple more.

Bonnie of Elyria, a mother and teacher, writes:

I would really like to be able to send my three boys to

college. As a public school teacher, I have worked hard to

instill in my students the idea of continuing education.

However, my own children will most likely have to take out

student loans to pursue a college education.

Our teachers are not so well paid that they can afford to pay these tuition bills themselves, obviously.

With soaring tuition rates, my children will graduate

college with more debt than me or my husband had after

graduating from college more than 35 years ago.

This is not a good way to start a career or a life on their

own.

This woman gets it. She was a teacher in Ohio. She knew there was sort of an assault on her profession from the Governor and the legislature last year when they tried to take away collective bargaining rights. We know teachers do not make a lot of money, and if their children are to go to school, even less-expensive schools, they so often need to take out student loans. We don't want to raise their interest rates.

Katie, from Marion, writes--Marion is a community just north and west of Columbus.

I urge you to vote against raising Stafford loan rates. I

live with my fiance, who is also attending college full time,

and our household brings in less than $35,000 a year. I am

working part time in order to attend college full time. With

college tuition and expenses being so expensive, adding in

the normal cost of living, it is a struggle to make ends meet

every month.

I understand and respect the legislative process and,

unlike many people I know, I still have faith it can be

effective. I know that compromises have to be made for change

to occur.

However, I am worried that by the time everyone is on the

same page, the Government will have either taken so long to

come up with a solution or cut funding so much, that the

average American can no longer afford to pursue a college

degree.

. . . I hope that if nothing else, you take away from this

that there are Ohioans in this for the long run. We will not

accept anything less than what we deserve, and education is

not negotiable.

The last one I will read is by RaShya, of Toledo.

I am a second year law student at the University of

Minnesota law school. I am a native of Toledo, OH and

received my BA in political science with honors and an MBA in

finance from the University of Toledo.''

I am the product of a single-parent home and a first-

generation college graduate. My mother is a cancer survivor

and my father was shot and killed when I was ten. I am the

eldest of three children.

My education has been a miracle of sorts and allowed me to

change the circumstances of my environment.

It was only possible through scholarship money and federal

loans. I am deeply saddened by the rate hikes that loom in

July of this year.

Making education less accessible hurts others that grew up

in circumstances similar to mine. This economy requires a

good college education but the promise of employment is still

uncertain.

Raising loan rates hurts students. Please vote to extend

the rate cuts that threaten to expire this July.

Those three letters so speak for themselves where students just want an opportunity. They are not asking for welfare or a handout, they just want to keep interest rates low so they can go to college without such a huge, onerous, burdensome debt they will never get out from under it. Why would we do this to this generation? My wife was the first in her family to go to college. Her dad carried a union card, worked at the illuminating company. Her mother was a home care worker who went back to work when Connie started college to try to help them pay--and she graduated.

She had very little help from her family financially because she was the eldest of four children. She got low-interest loans, and she graduated with only a couple thousand dollars of debt from Kent State University.

Those days seem to be behind us. We should at least aim for that kind of situation today where young people get a better chance, more of a fighting chance when they come out of school.

I urge my colleagues to listen to these stories and to read some of them and to vote accordingly when we bring this bill back to the floor. Today there was a vote, and more than 40 of our colleagues said: We are not even going to allow this bill on the floor to debate. That is pretty unconscionable to me when we hear the stories of these young people.

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

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

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

Madam President, earlier today, Senator Durbin and the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights held a hearing in Cleveland to examine efforts that could hinder the ability of Ohioans to exercise one of their fundamental constitutional rights, the right to vote. These efforts, in the guise of preventing fraud, are part of a cynical effort to impede access to the ballot. Specifically, H.B. 194 in Ohio repeals a number of commonsense measures that assist people with voting.

For 8 years I served as secretary of state of Ohio, charged with administering elections, so I understand what goes into ensuring the fundamental right to vote. Inherent in that responsibility is ensuring that voting is accessible, free of intimidation and roadblocks.

As a State, over a period of decades, Ohio legislators undertook a bipartisan--and I underscore that word ``bipartisan''--effort to help Ohioans get access to the polls. When I was secretary of state, we had significant input and assistance from Republicans as we made voting laws work for huge numbers of people. We understood Ohioans had many priorities pulling them in many directions so we ought to make registration accessible. People could register using utility bills. The electric company included registration forms in utility bills. McDonald's, at my request, printed 1 million tray liners so people could actually fill them out to register to vote. At the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, people could register to vote. This was bipartisan. The legislature, when acting, would expand this right to vote, make sure this right to vote was protected. It was generally bipartisan.

Today, rather than protecting the right to vote, we are seeing brazen attempts to undermine it. We are told this bill and laws similar to it will reduce costs and reduce the risk of voter fraud. The overwhelming evidence, however, indicates that voter fraud is virtually nonexistent and these new laws will make it harder and more costly for hundreds of thousands of Ohioans to exercise the right to vote and more costly for the election system, meaning taxpayer--county boards of elections and all that.

Voters are simply not going to awaken one morning in Cleveland and vote and then drive to Elyria and then vote and then drive to Norwalk and then vote, then drive to Adena and then vote and then drive to Mansfield and then vote. People are not going to defraud the system that way. Why? No. 1, they are going to get caught, probably; and second, they are going to go to jail--all to take the risk of giving Barack Obama or Mitt Romney five more votes in a State of 11 million people. That is not going to happen.

Yet the people who are attacking our voting rights are claiming individuals are going to do things such as that to defraud--college students voting in college and then voting back in their hometown. People are not going to do that because the disincentives are too strong, the penalties are too harsh. There is simply no reason, so one can vote one extra time, that someone would possibly do that.

Let me tell a little bit about this new law. The new law--and what is disappointing to me--this new law repeals what was a bipartisan effort in 2006. In 2006, in response to some election problems of 2004 in the Presidential race, where people stood in long lines to vote, and there were other problems--in 2006, the Republican House and the Republican Senate in Columbus and the Republican Governor--with support from Democrats, so it was clearly bipartisan--passed voter reforms to set up early voting, to set up 1 week where voting and voter registration and early voting overlapped so people could actually register and vote during that week in early October. We did other things that made registration and voting more accessible.

But in spite of that, in spite of the consensus in Ohio about voting, now there is an effort to undercut that consensus. First, the law significantly reduces the early voting window. It takes away Saturday, Sunday, and Monday voting before the election, when over 100,000 people voted in Ohio that year, in 2008. This reduction in early voting was made despite the fact that evidence overwhelmingly indicates that limiting early voting will actually cost the taxpayers, boards of elections, money. Make no mistake, cutting Sunday voting was intended to suppress voting.

On the Sunday before election, Ohioans, who work long hours during the week, often go to the polls after church, fulfilling their civic and spiritual obligations on the same day. By ending early voting, the lines outside polling stations on election day will only get longer. The costs will only increase. This increases frustration and limits voting.

Another burden posed by H.R. 194 is that it bars poll workers from performing one of their most basic functions, helping voters find their right precinct. This law no longer requires that poll workers assist a confused, elderly, disabled or young voter in getting to their correct precinct. Here is how it works. We have tried to save money. As more people voted earlier, relieving some of the pressure on election day, the boards of elections have combined voting precincts. Instead, we will have fewer precincts in the same county and have to hire fewer poll workers. What that also means is sometimes they combine these precincts in these voting stations into one building so people might walk into a polling station and go to the wrong table. Under the law now, the poll worker is not required to help that person and say: No, you can't vote here, but you can vote across in the room next door, at this church or at this school. Someone today might walk in and the poll worker will simply say you are not eligible to vote in this precinct and they will walk home and not vote. This law discourages in many ways. Because these poll workers are people who live in the neighborhoods it discourages neighbors helping neighbors.

This is a solution in search of a problem. It is not something we need to do. There was consensus in Ohio that things needed to change after 2004. The laws enacted in 2006 led to shorter lines, more clarity, and less frustration for voters. While none of the changes I mention today make it impossible to vote, they build burdens to voting, burdens that have no good reason. That will mean fewer minority voters, fewer young voters, fewer elderly voters, fewer disabled voters. That may be what some politicians in this town want, but it is not what the people of Ohio want. Ohio deserves better when it comes to protecting our most fundamental constitutional rights.

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 for up to 10 minutes each.

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

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until Tuesday, May 8, at 10 a.m.; 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 Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2343, the Stop Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act, with the time until noon evenly divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; and that following the remarks of the two leaders, the majority control the first 30 minutes and the Republicans control the second 30 minutes; and that following the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 2343, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings.

Madam President, the first vote tomorrow will be at noon on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 2343, the Stop Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act.

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

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

Madam President, late last month I brought to Washington 55 or so college presidents from Ohio--presidents of 2-year and 4-year private and public colleges and universities--to discuss a whole host of issues. One subject that always comes up when you talk about young people, when you talk about college, when you talk about universities, is access to higher education, that far too many of our young people simply can't afford to go to college.

My wife, a graduate of Kent State some 30 years ago, was privileged in those days even though nobody in her family had ever gone to college. Her dad carried a union card, was a utility worker in Ashtabula, OH, working as a

maintenance worker in a local powerplant. She was able to go to school because in those days college was more accessible--Pell grants, some loans, tuition was significantly lower--and she was able to be the first in her family to go to college, and she went to Kent State University. Today it is much harder. Tuition is far too high. Pell grants haven't kept up with the cost of education the way they might have 30 years ago.

One of the options we have, the subsidized Stafford loan, which is available to students based on need and is often the main pathway to college for a number of them, is under stress, if you will. If we do nothing, if Congress doesn't do anything, the interest on these critical loans will double for borrowers beginning July 1, 2012. So the interest rates will actually double on those students if Congress does nothing. The interest rate right now is 3.4 percent. That is why they are called subsidized Stafford loans.

We know that investing in our young people this way, giving them an opportunity to go to college, which they couldn't otherwise, could make such a difference in their lives. A number of people don't want to go to college. That is fine. Those who want to go should have that opportunity.

Student debt in this country has reached about $870 billion, exceeding credit cards and auto loans. As more and more students continue to enroll in higher education, balances are expected to continue climbing. This means fewer of our young adults will be able to buy a home, start a business, or continue on to graduate school. Already, students graduate from 4-year colleges and universities in Ohio with, on average, about $27,000 in student loan debt. If the interest rates double, it will add another $2,000 in debt for the average borrower and as much as an additional $5,000 for the neediest borrower on subsidized Stafford student loans. A number in this institution in the Senate on the Democratic side are trying to convince our colleagues how important it is that we stop this interest rate from doubling. We must act before July 1.

Just as we have an obligation to keep college affordable for middle- class Americans and working-class Americans, we have as great an obligation to keep college accessible to American veterans. This year more than 500,000 servicemembers and veterans are expected to take advantage of the post-9/11 GI bill, a bill we passed out of the Veterans' Affairs Committee to ensure that all veterans could afford the rising cost of college. The VA is expected to spend some $11 billion in education benefits and other GI bill benefits this year alone.

We know in the 1940s and 1950s what the first GI bill did--signed near the end of World War II--how it created a whole generation of prosperity and a strong middle class. We know that the GI Bill of Rights, which the House and Senate passed I believe 3 years ago, has begun to help large numbers of veterans again. Unfortunately, servicemembers and veterans are often aggressively recruited by some educational institutions that use misleading information. For instance, if you visit the Web site gibill.com, it directs a veteran to enter his or her personal and contact information to obtain information about the GI bill's educational benefits. It looks just like a government Web site, but it is not. It turns around and sells that veteran's information, often to for-profit colleges.

Earlier today, I was welcomed at a VFW post in Cleveland by Jason Plezko, the commander of that post. I met with Brad Sonenstein, a U.S. Air Force veteran now studying at Kent State, and Joshua Rider, the assistant director of the Center for Adult and Veteran Services at Kent State University. Brad explained how he was inundated with offers and letters when he was exploring how to utilize his well-earned GI benefits. Those offers overwhelmingly came from for-profit colleges. He said they were more interested in their own bottom line than helping those who served in the front lines. That is simply not right.

No one is in a better position to make a decision as to what is best for them as a veteran than the veteran herself or the veteran himself. We can play a role in assisting them. The GI Bill Consumer Awareness Act provides veterans with more and better information about their benefits, calls for improved education counseling, and gives colleges new resources to hire people such as Joshua Rider to help returning veterans. It requires all institutions of higher education to disclose critical information, such as the average student loan debt, the transferability of credits, and accurate job-placement data. We do that at our State universities. We do that at most of our not-for-profit private schools. We do that at our 2-year community colleges.

Those using the GI bill tend to be older than the average student population. They choose to serve our Nation, often right out of high school rather than going straight to college. Because of this many have families and careers and other challenges their classmates don't have. Giving our veterans the tools to make the best possible decisions benefits all of them. That is the importance of the GI Bill Consumer Awareness Act.

I particularly thank Senator Murray, chair of the Veterans' Committee, for her work on this legislation. This body should pass it immediately.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

I rise to urge the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

In 1994, this very important act became law. It was groundbreaking for women, for law enforcement, and for local advocacy organizations that received the resources they needed to better protect victims of abuse. It empowered us to combat domestic and dating violence and to prevent sexual assault and stalking.

The Violence Against Women Act has improved the criminal justice system's ability to keep victims safe and to hold perpetrators accountable. It has been a valuable tool for so many women, so many children, so many families, and law enforcement to make sure we can keep people safe. It is vital we ensure these services remain intact.

Last year, the law expired. Critical efforts that help women and their children protect themselves from domestic violence and stalking and now cyber threats continue only on a short-term basis.

As a husband, as a father of three daughters and a daughter-in-law and as a Senator, I find any further delay of reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act to be simply unacceptable. Our mothers, our sisters, our daughters deserve more protection and security and less of the political bickering.

In 2011, there were more than 38,000 reported cases of domestic violence in Ohio. Of course, many more than that--thousands more, we think--went unreported. Women live, as do children, with fear and pain. These women live with the fear and pain of their partner's physical and emotional abuse. It is because of the Violence Against Women Act that they have somewhere to turn. It is because of that law that when they do, they have the help to escape violent relationships and the support to seek legal representation when they need it. It is why authorizing the Violence Against Women Act is so important.

Women's shelters and domestic violence centers clearly would have trouble existing without this law. These are the very organizations that connect women with legal help, emergency housing, transportation, and like services. They help with primary prevention programs so children grow up learning the importance of healthy and safe relationships.

The Violence Against Women Act is about assisting law enforcement officials who place themselves in danger when they investigate and prosecute cases of abuse and violence.

Reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act would invest in State grant programs--such as the Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders Program--that help law enforcement respond to assault crimes. The bill provides tools for law enforcement, victim service providers, and court personnel to better identify and manage high-risk offenders and prevent domestic violence homicides.

Reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act is long overdue. It is time to stand for the women in this country so they are no longer subject to neglect and abuse and the law's inaction. I urge my Senate colleagues to reauthorize, finally, after the opposition--opposition I don't even understand--from a number of my most conservative colleagues, how important it is to reauthorize one of the most important pieces of legislation affecting women in our country.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia. I so appreciate Senator Isakson's comments about Africa. He is lucky enough to represent the CDC, which is one of the greatest organizations in human history, which has made such a difference in health care for low-income people in this country and around the world and, frankly, not just low-income people but what we call the public health of this country. Few achievements are greater than the achievements of public health, whether it is eradicating smallpox internationally--we are both old enough--the Presiding Officer may not be--to remember kids that we knew from grade school who were afflicted with polio and the fear of every parent that their child might get that, and the CDC and the public health system in this country removed that threat with vaccines and all that.

The Export-Import Bank

Mr. President, I rise briefly for 4 or 5 minutes to talk about one way that companies in my State grow and create jobs, and that is by selling their products around the world. President Obama set a goal to double exports from the United States in the next 5 years. I am part of the President's advisory council. There is a handful of Senators and a few Members of the House of Representatives who are part of this advisory committee, along with many business leaders in the country, CEOs of large companies, presidents and CEOs of small companies, small businesses, too, to advise the President.

Earlier today, I joined with Fred Hochberg, president of the Export- Import Bank of the United States, and Eric Burkland, president of the Ohio Manufacturing Association in Columbus, to discuss the need to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.

Ohio has had quicker increases in job growth than other States. We are coming back; our unemployment rate is now lower than the national average, but it is still far too high. Too many Ohioans want to work and cannot find jobs. Some have jobs but are not working full time or their pay has been cut or is stagnant. Manufacturing is gaining nationally, adding 470,000 jobs since January 2010. To put that into historical perspective, for 12 years, from 1997 to 2010--12-plus years--we saw a manufacturing job loss in this country every single year from the year before, with fewer factories, fewer workers, and less manufacturing. But since early 2010, we have seen almost every single month, in Ohio and across the country, job growth in manufacturing. It is still not enough. It is positive, but we are not out of the woods yet. I fear we take a step back if Congress fails to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.

We know that Ohio manufacturers and small businesses can compete with anyone in the world, from Zanesville to Springfield, to Ashtabula, to Toledo; American manufacturers can compete with anybody in the world if there is a level playing field.

We know how to make things in Ohio. When we stamp ``made in Ohio'' on a product, we know it was made with pride and by some of the most efficient, progressive companies in the world, and some of the best workers in the world.

Exporting is tough, especially for small businesses. Fewer than 1 percent of the Nation's nearly 26 million small businesses export their products. Very few small businesses are able to export for a whole host of reasons.

I hear from small business owners who want to expand and who want to get access to foreign markets, but they can't secure private financing due to the credit risks associated with some overseas investments. One of the most important resources to help small businesses and midsize manufacturers to boost their exports is the Export-Import Bank.

Ex-Im's mission is simple: It facilitates exports and contributes to job creation in the United States. It does it through loans, through guarantees, through insurance. It fills in gaps through trade financing at no cost to taxpayers. The market sometimes doesn't deliver in these situations. The Ex-Im Bank can fill in some gaps and help companies that have the ability to grow and export to actually do that.

The Ex-Im Bank generates revenue to the U.S. Treasury. Yet despite this record of success in exports, jobs are at stake because Congress cannot agree to the Ex-Im reauthorization. The Ex-Im Bank's lending authority expires May 31. We know companies that export products create jobs, pay higher wages, and are more likely to remain in business. Export-supported jobs linked to manufacturing already account for an estimated 7 percent. One out of fourteen of Ohio's total private sector jobs, 1 out of 14 Ohio workers are linked to export. More than one- fourth of manufacturing workers in Ohio depend on exports for their jobs--the eighth highest among the 50 States.

We need to do a better job in ensuring that America's small businesses have access to that global market. The Ex-Im Bank helps. It provides credit that otherwise wouldn't be available to turn export opportunities for businesses into increased jobs, higher wages, and increased sales.

In 2011, the bank worked with almost 100 Ohio businesses to support more than $400 million in export sales. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, Ex-Im supports 290,000 export-related jobs. More than 8 percent of Ex-Im's transactions supported small businesses last year.

Renewing the bank's charter should be a cause all Senators support, just like the 25 times the Senate has overwhelmingly reauthorized the agency since its establishment in 1934. Think about that. Since 1934, time after time after time, this body has unanimously or overwhelmingly reauthorized--kept going--the Export-Import Bank--but not today, for whatever reason. Perhaps it is the same reason as when the Presiding Officer's Buffett rule was on the floor of the Senate this week that a number of Senators said no to moving forward. I don't know if it is because the Republican leader has said he wants President Obama to fail or if it is just this rigid philosophy that there is no positive role for government.

Whether it is the highway bill, the Buffett rule or the Ex-Im Bank, we know at least that the Ex-Im Bank works, and it is strongly supported by the chamber of commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the machinists who testified in our Banking Committee this week. It is supported by all kinds of people who want to see this economy grow. Unfortunately, a number of my colleagues, for whatever reason, don't want to move forward.

This is a matter of American jobs. It is a matter of competitiveness. We had

a trade deficit with China of $295 billion in 2011, meaning every day we buy about $800 million more in goods from China than we sell to China. The first President Bush, some years ago, said that $1 billion in exports or imports could translate into 13,000 jobs. When we have a $295 billion deficit, with one country alone last year, one can see the kind of job loss it means. We know China's Export-Import and development banks provide as much as $100 billion in export credits each year. That is three times as many new export credits as the U.S. Export-Import Bank does.

So we know, even with reauthorization, that China still does way more of this than the United States. Yet we are unilaterally disarming if we allow this May 31 date to come and go and the Ex-Im Bank reauthorization expires. It makes no sense for our manufacturers, for our big and small companies, and it makes no sense for our workers and our communities that will all be hurt if we don't do that.

It is time to end the delay. It is time to reauthorize the Export- Import Bank.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I am joined on the floor today for his first time on the Senate floor with John Crown, who works on our veterans affairs issues. He came from the Veterans Committee and joined our staff in the last couple of weeks. John Crown is a marine, did two tours of duty in Iraq, and we honor him for his service. He, it seems, wants to dedicate his life to serving people who also served their country, people of all ages and both genders and all ideologies and who served their country anytime in the last several decades. I wanted to announce his first visit to the Senate floor today.

Doolittle Tokyo Raiders

Mr. President, 70 years ago this week, on April 18, 1942, 80 brave American airmen volunteered for an extremely hazardous mission. The Presiding Officer, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, knows I like to come to the Senate floor and talk about history and honor people who have played such an important role in our history. I want to talk about these men. They were known as the Doolittle Tokyo Raiders. They accepted their mission without knowing what it entailed. Their mission followed the attack on Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor happened, obviously, the December before. It was our Nation's first offensive against Japanese soil in the Second World War, planned and led by Lt. Col. Jimmy Doolittle.

The mission was risky from the outset. It was the first time the Army Air

Corps and Navy collaborated on a tactical mission, flying 16 B 25 Mitchell bombers from the deck of the USS Hornet, a feat never attempted before. The morning of the raid, the USS Hornet encountered Japanese ships 170 miles from the prearranged launch point. Fearing that the mission might be compromised, the Raiders proceeded to launch 170 miles earlier than anticipated. By departing 650 miles from their intended target, these men accepted the risk they might not have enough fuel to make it beyond the Japanese lines to occupied China. Accepting this choice meant the raiders would almost certainly have to crash land or bail out, either above Japanese-occupied China or even over the home islands in Japan. Any survivors, they knew, would certainly be subjected to imprisonment or torture or death.

After reaching their targets, 15 of the bombers continued to China while the 16th, dangerously low on fuel, headed to Russia. The total distance traveled by the Raiders averaged 2,250 nautical miles over 13 hours, making it the longest combat mission ever flown in a B 25 bomber during the war.

Of the 80 Raiders who were launched that day, 8 were captured. Of these eight prisoners, three were executed, one died of disease, and four of these prisoners returned home after the end of the war. Of the original 80 Raiders, 5 are still with us today and they are celebrating this week the 70th anniversary in Dayton, OH, honoring their fellow Raiders who are no longer with them. As they gather this week, I am proud to submit this resolution with my colleagues from both parties and from each State where these men reside. It is my pleasure to have Senator Hutchison from Texas, Senator Murray from Washington State, Senator Alexander from Tennessee, Senator Tester from Montana, and Senator Baucus, also from Montana, and Senator Nelson as my cosponsors. It is my sincere privilege especially to have Senators Inouye and Lautenberg, both veterans of the war, as cosponsors, too.

As the Raiders gather this week, these five men will also honor other heroes--this is what is perhaps even as interesting as the first part-- the Chinese citizens who cared for, protected, and enabled them to survive in a foreign land, a very foreign land to these American men. A Chinese delegation is coming to Dayton for the reunion. Among the delegation is a man whose father helped carry injured Raiders to safety and even nursed one Raider to health. I would be certain they could not talk to each other in a common language. They had never seen anybody like the other one. Yet one, a Chinese, helped this American airman.

It is only fitting we recognize this week's anniversary and commend the 5 living members and the 75 deceased members of the Doolittle Tokyo Raiders for their heroism on that day. It is fitting to remember the compassion shown to the Raiders by the Chinese villagers they encountered.

The Senate resolution is our humble attempt to show our gratitude. The valor, skill, and courage shown by the Raiders proved invaluable to the eventual defeat of Japan during the Second World War. Today, these men, with their Chinese friends, remind us that quiet decency and uncommon valor in the face of sure danger, however rare, are traits that know no limit.

The Auto Industry

Mr. President, the last 2 weeks most Members of the Senate were back in their States talking--I hope listening more than talking and learning more than perhaps talking--and learning about issues and problems they were seeing and hearing in their State. I was in Ohio, from Ashtabula to Parma to Zanesville, to meet with Ohioans to discuss ways to get our economy back on track.

Too many Ohioans are struggling as too many people in Pennsylvania are struggling. Many are still looking for work. Others have seen their wages cut or their hours reduced, but from Chillicothe to Toledo, from Portsmouth to Mansfield, there are signs of recovery as our manufacturers, especially auto suppliers, but much more than that, and some of the small businesses supplying these companies, are beginning to show real signs of growth.

Few places are more symbolic of this than a company called American Manufacturing, located in Toledo. Three years ago the auto industry, as we know, was on the verge of collapse, threatening to take down with it thousands of auto parts suppliers. American Manufacturing got down to four employees. They had had 125. They supplied container crates, metal container crates, for the auto industry. It had once been 125, down to 4 employees.

President Bush tried but was blocked, mostly by Republicans in the Senate, his own party members, to do a bridge loan and assistance for the auto industry. President Obama, with a strong Democratic majority, over the opposition of many Republicans--although some Republicans in my part of the country, the industrial areas around Ohio, including Ohio, were supportive--was able to rescue this industry. We knew that rescuing the auto industry was way more than about helping Chrysler and General Motors. We knew it mattered, not just for those large companies and their workers, it mattered for Johnson Controls, it mattered for Magnam, it mattered for small companies such as American Manufacturing in Toledo, companies that depended on the auto industry.

In fact, estimates are that 800,000 people in Ohio are in the auto industry one way or the other; directly or indirectly they work for auto companies. Forty-eight of these 800,000-plus jobs were depending on Congress moving forward in early 2009, doing the right thing. The decision was not popular. There were all kinds of naysayers. There is no question now that it was a success. A number of people--from Governor Romney to lots of people around the country and lots of conservative politicians in Washington--said we can structure it. But let the companies go into bankruptcy and then let them put the financing together to come out of bankruptcy. The only problem was that nobody--from Bain Capital to First National Bank--was willing to loan money to these two behemoths, Chrysler and GM, because they were in such a terrible situation and had such terrible problems.

So what happened? The government loaned the money. Much of that money is paid back and things are better. But let's not forget that in January of 2009, when President Obama took office, we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. Our economy was in freefall, and this was the time the auto industry was going down. To stop the bleeding, one of the things we did was unlock the frozen credit market for small businesses and manufacturers through the Small Business Administration. Through these SBA loans, we saw a new local bank that had only been around for a handful of years in Toledo, OH, step up, invest capital in American Manufacturing, which is in Toledo, and this company is now about to hire its 100th person. This company is successful now because of the auto rescue, and it is successful because of the Small Business Administration coming out of the Recovery Act and having enough money to guarantee loans not with a Wall Street bank but a local community bank to get this company on its feet.

Even with all of this we are seeing that the auto rescue is working, and we know two terrific examples of how it is working in my State. The Chevy Cruze is assembled in Youngstown, OH. My 28-year-old daughter drives a Chevy Cruze. The Chevy Cruze probably would not exist today if it were not for the auto rescue, and here is what it means to Ohio: The engine is made in Defiance, OH; the bumper is made in Northwood, OH; the transmission is made in Toledo, OH; the sound system is made in Springboro, OH; the steel comes out of Middletown, which is in Butler County, OH; the aluminum comes out of Cleveland, OH; the stamping is done in Parma, OH; and the assembly is done in Lordstown, OH.

Look at the Jeep Wrangler. The Jeep Wrangler was assembled in Toledo prior to the auto rescue, but only 50 percent of the parts for the Jeep Wrangler were made in the United States. Today there are more people working at Wrangler, producing more cars--still assembled in Ohio--yet instead of 50 percent, 75 percent of the parts now come from companies in the United States made by workers in the United States.

What we are now seeing as the auto industry begins to grow and the auto rescue was so clearly the right thing to do--thank God the Senate and the House didn't listen to the naysayers. In spite of that, we are still seeing huge trade deficits with China in auto parts.

Ten years ago our trade deficit with China and auto parts was a $1 billion. That meant we bought about $1 billion in car parts from China more than we sold to China. That was 10 years ago. Today that number has grown to almost $10 billion.

The first President George Bush said a $1 billion trade deficit, meaning we bought $1 billion more than we sold to another country, translated to about 13,000 jobs. Do the math. Today the bilateral trade deficit between the United States and China on auto parts alone is $10 billion.

We are seeing it in other things. We see it in auto, we see it in solar, and we see that China uses unfair subsidies. They subsidize water, they subsidize energy, they subsidize land, they subsidize credit, and on top of that they have a currency advantage because they manipulate the currency.

Sitting idly by is not an option. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand that. That is why my China currency manipulation bill--the biggest bipartisan bill to pass the Senate in 2011 by more than 70 votes--costs the taxpayers nothing, but it levels the playing field so China cannot manipulate its currency and cheat in international trade. As I said, that legislation passed with 70 votes.

A recently released report shows that if this Congress--meaning the House of Representatives down the hall--would pass this and send it to the President's desk, and if the President signs it, that by addressing the China currency manipulation it could support the creation of 2.2 million American jobs without adding a dime to the deficit. In fact, it would be the opposite.

If we take 2 million people who are now unemployed and put them in manufacturing jobs making $15, $20, $25 an hour, we would clearly see the deficit shrink. More people would be back on the payroll paying taxes and contributing to their communities.

It is time to take bold action. It is time to stand up on China currency. I appreciate the support of my colleagues in the Senate on the China currency bill. Time is running out in the House. I am hopeful the House of Representatives passes this bill too. It is time we put American workers and American manufacturing companies first.

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