Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the men and women of NASA Glenn Research Center in my home State of Ohio for their achievements in the design, build, and test of the new space environmental test capability for the Space Power Facility at Plum Brook Station. These new capabilities will advance the human exploration of space, ensure the safety of our astronauts, drive scientific advances and technology development, and enrich the lives of all people and inspire our next generation of explorers throughout the United States and the world.

Seventy years ago, during World War II, the United States sought sites for ordnance facilities to help defeat totalitarianism. In quiet Erie County, OH, between major highways and acres of farmland, the Army Corps of Engineers created Plum Brook, a facility that would first be home to a munitions factory, and for the last 50 years, Plum Brook Station has continued to serve our Nation as a one-of-a kind facility that has ensured the success of our Nation's space program.

Throughout its history, Plum Brook remained vital to our Nation's security and our Nation's exploration of space. The National Advisory Council for Aeronautics, NACA, the predecessor to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, built a facility to test the nuclear power sources for airplanes and spacecraft that would be designed at Lewis Field--later to be NASA Glenn Research Center--in Cleveland, OH.

When President John F. Kennedy announced that the United States would push the boundaries of science and innovation to explore the heavens, Plum Brook Station became a world-class test site for the new spacecraft. A thermal vacuum chamber, called the Space Power Facility, was built to simulate the harsh space environment. At 100 feet wide and 122 feet high, it remains the largest thermal vacuum chamber in the world.

In 2007, as NASA began to develop a new path for human space exploration, the men and women of NASA Glenn at Lewis Field and Plum Brook Station rose to the challenge to develop a test capability that would push the boundaries of spacecraft testing. The new spacecraft will continue the United States' legacy of carrying American pioneers beyond Earth's orbit, but will experience launch and space environments that never before have been experienced. The Space Environmental Test Facility will allow NASA to test its new spacecraft to these new extremes--ensuring the safety of our Nation's astronauts and the success of our space exploration mission.

To keep our crews safe, the test capabilities of Plum Brook Station were expanded beyond that of the largest thermal vacuum chamber in the world. These include: a state-of-the-art sine-vibration table that has the largest capacity for payload size and weight in the world, the largest electromagnetic reverberant chamber in the world, and the most powerful acoustic facility in the world capable of simulating launch environments for developmental spacecraft. This facility is now the crown jewel of NASA's test capabilities.

I have had the privilege to meet many of the scientists, engineers, and technicians who made this achievement possible. They are dedicated and compassionate, and guided by the scientific patriotism that displays a Nation's pursuit in understanding the world in which we all live.

These pioneers of NASA Glenn will continue to push the boundaries of spaceflight--fueling technology advancements and inspiring our children to follow in the footsteps of great Ohioans like Neil Armstrong and John Glenn. The scientists and engineers of NASA Glenn will ensure the success of the next generation of pioneers.

Our Nation is defined by the spirit of discovery, the pioneers who pushed westward on land, navigated the oceans, and are now sending humankind into what was once a mere vision seen only through Galileo's eye. We are a nation of pioneers. And we all have a responsibility to safeguard that defining American spirit and to inspire a new generation of American explorers.

No.

I thought Senator Hatch said that the senior Senator from Ohio, then the junior Senator from Ohio.

I didn't understand that from my conversations, but I do not object.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio for his kind words. I appreciate his support, his public support--he did not speak specifically on the Casey-Brown-Baucus amendment, I do not believe; I had to step out for a moment, but I know he has said positive words about restarting, if you will, trade adjustment assistance, and with some expansion, not quite as good as it was 2 years ago, but still a very important program.

I appreciate Senator Portman's words and his support of expanding it, and I hope he joins with some other Republicans in actually supporting the Casey-Brown-Baucus amendment.

I particularly thank Chairman Baucus for his strong support of trade adjustment assistance. Senator Casey, especially, has pushed for this for, well, almost a year now, when in December we did everything but beg our colleagues to renew this program that helps workers who are unemployed through no doing of their own.

In early 2009, we had written a very good trade adjustment assistance: If you lose your job because of a trade agreement, or if you lose your job because of trade, even if it is a service job--it used to just be manufacturing--you will get two things: One, you will get trade adjustment assistance so you can continue with your life and not get foreclosed on, you can continue to provide for your kids, and you can have a little bit of money to get retrained.

I met a woman in Youngstown not too long ago who lost her manufacturing job to trade. She got TAA. She used that money to go to nursing school at Youngstown State University, and she was in school with her daughter who was also getting a nursing degree. You think: That is exactly how TAA works. There are those examples, I am sure, in Philadelphia and Harrisburg, and I will bet you there are even examples in Provo of trade adjustment assistance working in that way. That is why it is so very important.

At the same time, the language we wrote also gives help for people to continue their health insurance. I was at a place in Columbus not too long ago that specializes in helping people get back on their feet and get work. To hear someone tell a story: First, they lose their job. They do not get much assistance. Then they lose their health care. Then they have to talk to their 12-year-old son and 14-year-old daughter about moving because they lost their home.

Does nobody here--I should not say ``nobody'' because a lot of my colleagues do care, but does nobody here care about somebody who has to sit down with their kids and say: Sorry, honey, we are going to lose our home because of foreclosure because we lost our jobs and we are not getting retrained and finding any work? That, to me, is what this is all about.

I want to talk a little bit about trade adjustment assistance beyond what I said, but I also want to talk about

some of my colleagues' statements about trade and what it has done for this country, to this country. I hear all the theories. Every country in the world practices trade according to its national interests. The United States of America practices trade according to an economics textbook that is 20 years out of date.

In my first year in the House of Representatives, the Congress passed the North American Free Trade Agreement, something I know if Senator Casey had been here he would have voted against it. I voted against it. I remember the promises, the promises from the free-trade-at-any-cost crowd, that NAFTA would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. They said it with NAFTA. They said it with PNTR with China. They said it with the Central American Free Trade Agreement: If you pass this, it is going to mean more manufacturing and more high-tech jobs and stronger communities. Look what it has meant.

Go to Springfield, OH, go to Ashtabula, go to Lima, go to Mansfield, go to Zanesville, go to Chillicothe, go to Xenia. Look at these medium- sized cities of 30,000, 40,000, 50,000, 60,000 people, and look at what has happened to them. Often in smaller communities--the Senator from Montana, the Presiding Officer, knows this--a husband and wife both work at a plant.

In Jackson, OH, I was walking a picket line with some workers who were locked out, and then the plant ultimately closed. For a number of the people I saw, the husband and wife both worked at this manufacturing plant, each making about $12 or $13 or $14 an hour. They were middle class with their combined income. When this plant moved overseas, their family income was wiped out.

It happens over and over in small towns. It happens in Dayton and it happens in Cleveland and it happens in Columbus and Philly and Pittsburgh and Harrisburg. It happens in small towns and big cities.

Then we see this free-trade-at-any-cost crowd come to the Senate floor and say: If we only had trade promotion authority, we could do more of this because it works so well. Free trade has worked so well for our country.

Why have we lost these hundreds of thousands of jobs? Do you know why? Because the business plan in this country, the business plan, never in world history--I do not think we have seen this ever in world history--is where a business plan for a company is to shut down production in Steubenville, shut down production in Toledo, move that company to Shanghai, move that company to Mexico City, make those products, and sell them back into the United States. So their business plan is to shut down manufacturing in this country, go overseas, hire cheaper workers, in places where there are weaker environmental laws, nonexistent worker safety laws, and sell the products back into the United States.

That is what our manufacturing policy has been. That is why this whole idea of Korea and Colombia and Panama--as if Mexico and Central America and China were not enough--this whole idea of free trade at any cost is bankrupting our country. That is why wages during the last 10 years, during the Bush administration and since--since 2001, wages in this country have gone down. We have lost jobs in this country, almost. We have not grown jobs in this country. It is about what we had in 2001, with a much larger population.

Wages down, job growth flat, and the trade policy is working? So our answer is, let's do more of it, as if NAFTA and CAFTA and PNTR were not enough? Let's do more trade agreements? Let's send more jobs overseas? Also, we can practice trade according to what the Washington Post and the New York Times and the rightwing papers and the leftwing papers and the Harvard economists and the economic elite in this country say? Also, they can follow what they learned in economics 101, taught with a textbook that is 20 years out of date? It is not working for our country.

I was talking on the phone today with a retiree in eastern Ohio, and she had just been with her son who was about to be deployed at his base. She and her husband went and visited her son. He is a marine. She went to the commissary, and do you know what. She bought a hat that said ``Marines.'' I think it said ``Marines.'' She bought a hat. She bought a bunch of stuff at the commissary. Where was it made? Guess. It was not made in Helena. It was not made in Harrisburg. It was not made in Columbus. This is insane. We have American flags that are made abroad. We have products in commissaries that are made abroad. We have products Senator Sanders spoke out against sold here in the U.S. Capitol that are made abroad. Why? Because we have a trade policy that is morally bankrupt, politically bankrupt, economically bankrupt, and it is not working for our country.

That is why this whole idea of trade promotion authority so we can do more of the same makes no sense at all. But it is also why we need to pass the Casey-Brown-Baucus amendment. When we made the reforms to TAA in 2009, 185,000 additional trade-affected workers became eligible in every State. Mr. President, 227,000 workers in 2010 alone participated in TAA. They got trained for new jobs that employers are looking to fill. I think we all know that we have, even in these bad economic times, jobs that remain unfilled because they cannot find workers with the right skills. This will help to fill that gap. We should all be for this.

According to the Peterson Institute, before the recession hit, between 2001 and 2007, two-thirds of TAA participants found jobs within 3 months of leaving the program. Ninety percent stayed at these jobs for at least a year. It is a program that works. It helps people get health care. It helps people stay in their homes. It helps people get new skills so they can work.

The last comment I will make: I have said enough about the bankruptcy of American trade policy, its moral bankruptcy and economic bankruptcy alike. Our trade deficit in 2010--I do not like to come to the floor and use a lot of numbers--if this is not reason enough, in 2010 our trade deficit was $634 billion. You do know what that means. That means, basically, every day we buy almost $2 billion more worth of goods made abroad than we sell abroad--almost $2 billion a day.

If one-tenth the attention was paid to the trade deficit as we pay to the budget deficit, this would be a better country. We would see more manufacturing in places such as Cleveland and Columbus and Dayton.

Our trade deficit with China was $273 billion in 2010. Ten years before--before PNTR--our trade deficit with China was $68 billion. It went from $68 billion to $273 billion in one decade. That works so well that we should do more of it? President Bush said $1 billion in trade surplus or trade deficit translates into 13,000 jobs, a $1 billion trade surplus means 13,000 additional jobs, $1 billion trade deficit means 13,000 fewer jobs.

So our trade deficit with China last year was $273 billion. You do not have to be good in math to know that translates into a lot of jobs. Making products sold at the Capitol, making products sold at commissaries, making products sold all over--until we figure this out and pass trade agreements that are actually in our national interests, we are simply, pure and simple, betraying our national interests and betraying the middle-class families and the families in our country that aspire to be middle class.

I support the Casey-Brown-Baucus amendment and thank Chairman Baucus again for his work.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded and to speak as if in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

I was listening to the Senator from California describe how the American taxpayers pay for all kinds of public facilities from utilities to schools to water systems to energy production in other countries around the world, and according to Senator Boxer there is never objection to that from the other side of the aisle. But when the President of the United States wants to do that same kind of construction in the United States of America, there seems to be objection. I was taken by that, one, because it is true; second, because it is pretty unbelievable that when the President decides that working with the Congress--causing the Congress to pass legislation so we can build schools and renovate schools in Michigan or California or Cleveland or Toledo--that some conservative Members of Congress in both Houses say, well, we can't do that even though we want to pay for it by closing the Wall Street tax loopholes, by taking away oil company subsidies, by closing the tax incentives that are in Federal law now that encourage companies to leave Hamtramck or leave Youngstown and go to Wuhan or Shanghai.

I was on a conference call yesterday with some school principals in Ohio, a principal from Zanesville, a moderate-sized community in eastern Ohio, who had been a principal in a nearby rural school district some years before, who was talking to me about how important school renovation is. The average school building in the United States is 40 years old. We would put so much effort in infrastructure in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, from Dwight Eisenhower with the interstate system to school superintendents and local taxpayers building schools and new water and sewer systems--including all the infrastructure we built in this country after World War II--in a bipartisan way to help our country grow. We put people to work doing the construction. We put people to work doing the manufacturing for materials used in the construction, and putting people to work because we built this infrastructure that the Kroger Company in Cincinnati needs to move its produce and other things for their stores all over the Midwest. It is the kind of infrastructure rebuilding that helps us with economic development.

The President was in Columbus 2 days ago talking at Fort Hayes High School about school construction and how important that is. I was talking to the school principal, who used to work in Maineville, and he told me how several years ago his school building was old and decrepit and needed fixing. He also said the test scores were not very good for these students. He said after they built a new school building and put these students in a place that they could learn better, it sent a message to these students that, yes, we care about education. He said the test scores went up markedly. I said, because of the new building? He said, yes. Uncategorically, he said yes.

We tell our young people in this country that education is most important, and then we send them to schools that don't look good. I wonder what students think when we put this premium on education, but then we don't act on it. He and the other principals talked about leaking roofs and mold on the walls. They talked about dark and dank hallways in auditoriums. They talked about the lack of technology.

What the President is trying to do--and what Senator Boxer was talking about, more with aviation and highways, but schools also--when he talks about investing in school renovation, one, it means jobs immediately for carpenters and electricians and plumbers and laborers and all kinds of people. It also means jobs immediately for the people producing the steel, the manufacturers, the cement, and the insulation. The biggest insulation plant in the United States of America is in Newark, OH. It creates jobs right now but it also means better schools for our kids, and it means long-range economic growth, long-range prosperity, and a better environment for us as a country.

What troubles me so much, as Senator Boxer said, is we are putting money into schools and water facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan--and I am okay with that if it serves our national interest. I am not okay when there are no objections to that from conservative politicians, but they object to doing that at home with schools in Chillicothe and Mansfield and Springfield and Lima and Youngstown and Akron.

It is so important to move forward on the school construction and jobs bill. Mr. President, $1 billion in investment in school construction and renovation creates about 10,000 jobs. Those 10,000 jobs are mostly middle-class jobs in manufacturing and the trades actually doing the construction and the building. It makes so much sense, and I am hopeful as the President goes around the country explaining it--he was in Columbus 2 days ago--that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle decide, yes, maybe we ought to actually focus on jobs and do the right thing.

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

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Levin). The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, I rise to speak today as citizens of Lorain County, OH soon gather to honor one of their favorite sons, ADM Ernest Joseph King, an American hero, who served as commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet, and Chief of Naval Operations during World War

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.

Last week, new trade figures were released. I know the Presiding Officer from North Carolina is very concerned about what has happened with these trade figures and what it means for jobs in her State and in my State.

The trade deficit with China widened from $26.7 billion in June to $27 billion in July. That is one country in one month. Granted, it is the country we have the biggest trade deficit with, but it is 1 month. President Bush, Sr., some years ago, said that a $1 billion trade surplus or trade deficit translated into some 13,000 jobs. Whether that number is precise or quantifiable or measurable is not the point. The point is that when we have persistently large trade deficits month after month, year after year, now decade after decade, we know what it means to the industrial base in our country.

I spent much of August in places such as Belmont County, St. Clairsville, Cleveland, Dayton, Mansfield, and Springfield, OH, where, in my State alone, these cities and communities had proud industrial heritages. They are places where people had real opportunity to join the middle class. After they graduated from high school, they could go and be trained and work in manufacturing and usually buy a home, a car, and send their child to college. My wife is the daughter of a utility worker, since deceased, in northeast Ohio, and she and her two younger sisters and brother were able to go to, in her case, Kent State, and other universities, in part paid for by her father's work in manufacturing--if you will, his union card--and assistance from government Pell grants and all they were able to do so the kids didn't graduate with huge debt the way they too often do now.

The trade deficit with China through July 2011 totaled $160 billion, up from $145 billion over the same period in 2010. We debate the budget deficit, as we should. But too many politicians in this city, too many editorial writers, too many pundits and economists ignore the trade deficit. They are too focused on things such as pay-fors. They ignore how the trade deficit has a dangerous effect on American jobs.

The best way to get our fiscal house in order is to get America working again, and one way to do that is by cracking down on unfair trade practices of some of our so-called trading partners. When the President steps up and enforces trade rules--and while I do not agree with the President sending the Korea, Panama, and Colombia trade agreements to the Congress for votes because I don't think they serve America's interests, I do believe this President, more than his predecessors, has been, relatively--I say ``relatively'' but blessedly so, and in some cases aggressive at enforcing trade rules. I have seen that in Youngstown in creating jobs. I have seen it in Loraine, where it has created jobs, and in Fenway, where it has created jobs, and it has helped our industry in Butler County in steel, in paper, and in tires.

It is clear that part of this problem is currency manipulation from the Chinese, which undermines American manufacturing and our very own job-creating efforts. In June, the Economic Policy Institute released a new report showing that addressing Chinese currency manipulation could support the creation of 2.25 million jobs. Put that in contrast to what they say--the ``free traders at any cost'' sort of free market, free- trade fundamentalists who preach: Pass NAFTA. It will mean hundreds of thousands of jobs. Pass CAFTA. Pass PNTR with China. It will mean millions of jobs.

It never does. It means job growth, but the job growth usually takes place--with NAFTA, it was in Mexico; CAFTA, in Central America; and PNTR, in China, which is East Asia. There is job growth, but there is nothing close to net job growth in our country. Even that, the President is saying, with this new agreement with South Korea, that it will sustain or keep or contribute to sustaining or keeping 100,000 jobs or so. So even the promises aren't that great on this new trade agreement, and we know they never live up to their promises. But we do also know if we stood up to currency manipulation, it could create 2.25 million American jobs. My friends on the other side of the aisle don't ever want to do any kind of direct spending on infrastructure in terms of job creation; that costs tax money. I think it is a good investment; they don't. But standing up on currency we know doesn't cost American taxpayers and it will, in fact, mean American jobs.

A paper mill in Butler County, down near Dayton and Cincinnati, someone who worked at that paper mill told me they are now competing with China for coated paper, which is a higher tech manufacturing of paper--the kind of magazine paper we all touch and use--that the pulp comes from Brazil, it is shipped to China, it is milled in China and shipped back to the United States and they undercut American prices. Yet only 10 percent of the cost of paper production is labor. What does that mean? It means they are gaming the currency system. They are subsidizing water and capital and land and they are paying low wages. How do we compete when they are not playing fair? Forget the low wages even for a minute. How do we compete when they are playing these currency games? By continuing the currency manipulation, we lose far too many jobs. By combating it, we help level the playing field for our manufacturers, we help our workers, we help spur our economic recovery.

That is why I introduced the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act. It would strengthen countervailing duty laws to consider undervalued currency as an unfair subsidy in determining duty rates.

So when we contest on a trade agreement, all we are saying when we contest is that undervalued currency is considered an unfair subsidy, because it is. It is not hard to convince people of that. It is not hard to illustrate or prove that. So when an industry such as the coated paper company in Hamilton or the oil country tubular steel used in drilling in Lorain or in Youngstown, where there is a new steel mill because of a trade decision the President made--thank you--or aluminum in Sidney--when an industry petitions the International Trade Commission for relief against unfair subsidies, currency manipulation under this new bill and amendment we are going to offer on the floor will be part of that investigation.

This is a designation that would ensure the government has the tools to respond on behalf of American manufacturers and workers by imposing countervailing duties on subsidized exports from China.

We have broad support here. Senator Schumer from New York, a Democrat, has been very involved. Senator Snowe from Maine, a Republican, has been very involved. Senator Stabenow, a Democrat from Michigan, and Senator Graham from South Carolina, a Republican, have been very involved in understanding that these kinds of currency manipulations cost us American jobs and undermine our economy. This designation would ensure the government has the tools to respond on behalf

of American manufacturers and workers by imposing these countervailing duties on subsidized exports from China. It is simple, straightforward, and achievable.

Addressing currency manipulation would decrease our budget deficit up to $70 billion a year and somewhere between $500 billion and $800 billion over 10 years if sustained. Addressing our trade deficit should be part of the debate in reducing our budget deficit. If we are going to create jobs, we have to ensure that our trading partners don't stack the deck. We want trade, and we want more of it, but we want fair trade, not this kind of phony free trade.

Almost every country in the world practices trade according to their national interests. The United States in this body and the President of the United States--typically, Presidents in both parties--have practiced trade according to some economics textbook that is 20 years out of date. If we are serious about standing for American workers and companies that continue to play by the rules, we need to pass this legislation.

With each passing week, more companies and workers are faced with the harsh realities of unfair competition and unwanted cutbacks due to Chinese currency manipulation. In towns and cities across our country-- go anywhere in this country, including Texas, where Senator Hutchison is from and who is awaiting a chance to speak on the floor, or North Carolina, the Presiding Officer's State, or my State, and we see that companies and workers are faced with the harsh realities of that unfair competition.

Workers have the proud tradition of making products that matter to America. From the tanks made in Lima, OH, supporting our troops abroad, to steel tubes created in Lorain, equipping our energy markets, Ohio manufacturers are vital to our Nation's security and economy. Our national security, our economic security, our family security, all those are dependent on making things in the United States of America.

My State is the third largest manufacturing State in the country. We are seventh in population, but we are third in manufacturing. We have lost far too many jobs in Zanesville and Jackson and Columbus and Akron because of this undermining of currency, because of this gaming of the system by China, its gaming of the system on currency.

It is time to take bold action. It is time to stand up to China. It is time to practice trade according to our communities and our national interests. It is time to do that. It is time to pass this legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. President, yesterday I was in Cincinnati, OH. Terralift has the largest Labor Day gathering in the United States of America by 15,000, 20,000, around Coney Island and just southeast of Cincinnati, not far from the Ohio River. They have a picnic every year celebrating workers, not just organized workers but workers generally.

I met a woman there by the name of Lillian Brayhound, and Ms. Brayhound was wearing a t-shirt that said ``Service Employees International Union.'' I asked her where she works, and she said she is a custodian in downtown Cincinnati. And I remember that 3 or 4 years ago I was at a dinner, and there was a group of workers, all middle- aged women, mostly minorities, mostly African American, a couple Latino women, and they had just signed their first union contract to represent the custodians in downtown Cincinnati office buildings.

I sat down at this table, and I said: What does this new union contract mean to you, to the workers there?

A 50-year-old woman turned to me and she said: This is the first time in my life I have ever had a paid week vacation.

Think about that: This is the first time in my life I have ever had a paid week vacation. That was because those workers, each of them working separately before for a building owner in a downtown Cincinnati office building, had gotten together, had voted to join a union, had the right to organize and bargain collectively. They still weren't getting rich. They still weren't making more than, I believe, if I recall, $10 or $11 an hour. But now they had a bit of a pension, now they had health care, and now they had a chance to actually earn a 1- week vacation, something many, many workers in America don't have the opportunity for. And when I hear people say: Well, unions meant something in the past, but they have outlived their usefulness, that really tells you what that is all about.

We celebrate that on Labor Day, but we also know the union movement is under attack. We look at what has happened in the Ohio Statehouse, where legislators in Columbus, most of whom were elected by talking about lost jobs in large part because of what happened in the Bush administration and the 8 years previously, but people who were very unhappy, as they have a right to be, as they should be, because of lost jobs, but what they have done is, after getting elected, they have gone after collective bargaining rights, worker rights. They have attacked voter rights. They have attacked in far too many cases women's rights.

Let's be clear. It is not teachers and firefighters and police officers who caused Ohio's budget deficit. It is not teachers and firefighters and police officers who caused this financial implosion our Nation has. Look at the history. It has been tax cuts for the wealthy; it has been reckless spending, overspending on corporate welfare, overspending on all kinds of things; it has been regulatory sleepwalking that has left our economy in ruins. As a result, we have a widening income gap, with wages generally stagnant for the last decade for middle-class and working-class voter citizens, wages stagnating or declining for most of the workforce but salaries and bonuses going up for people who are the most privileged, the bankers and wealthy executives and CEOs.

Robert Reich recently pointed out that the 5 percent of Americans with the highest incomes now account for 37 percent of all consumption. Reich points out that when income is concentrated at the top, the middle class doesn't have enough purchasing power to pull themselves out of this recession our economy suffers. The wealthiest people can only spend so much. If the middle class has their wages stagnant or actually decline, there simply isn't the purchasing power we need to create the demand to grow our economy. Our economy has been most prosperous when the middle class is thriving rather than when we have these huge gaps in income.

Today we have lost the consensus that our Nation's prosperity was tied to a thriving middle class, where opportunity was afforded to those seeking to join it.

We used to see that consensus on manufacturing, where an economy built wealth and built strong communities for millions of Americans around production. You only create wealth by mining, by agriculture-- growing something--and by manufacturing. Yet we

have seen what has happened to manufacturing jobs in Ohio. Ohio is still the largest manufacturing State in the country, below only Texas, twice our size, and California, three times our size. We still put out a lot of production. There is a lot of productive capacity in Ohio and a lot of production. But 30 years ago, 26, 27 percent of our GDP was manufacturing and about 10 percent was financial services. Those manufacturing jobs created wealth for a lot of middle-class families. Kids could go to college, they could buy a home or a car or two in so many cases. Today what used to be more than a quarter of our GDP in manufacturing and only 10 percent in financial services has flipped so today only about 10 percent of our GDP is manufacturing.

We know what that has done. Yet some of my Senate colleagues do not want to extend the payroll tax. In many ways, it seems they will essentially will go on strike to prevent the wealthiest in America from paying a penny more. I hope that changes now that we are back from the August break and we are listening to what voters, what citizens at home are talking about.

Mr. President, let me share a couple of letters from people in Ohio, a couple of stories. Then I know Senator Durbin wants to address the Senate.

Last April, I met with workers at Navistar in Springfield, OH, who are building next-generation military and commercial vehicles. The plant's production is up because a company and a community came together, forging compromise between the union and employer to keep jobs and increase production. We see it across Ohio. At the other end of our State, at Arcelor Mittal's plant--a big steel maker near Cleveland--for every 1 person-hour, 1 ton of steel is produced. To my understanding, we have never seen that kind of productivity anywhere else in the world. They are the most productive steelworkers in the world, able to produce 1 ton of steel for 1 man-hour, 1 woman-hour invested. We see it at the Lima Tank Plant and at the GE Aviation Plant in Evendale. It is a story we see down in Piketon. We see it in towns across Ohio, where the ``Made in Ohio'' or ``Made in America'' is stamped on everything from airplanes to auto parts.

I got a letter from David from Akron. He said:

I am a firefighter/paramedic for the city of Akron. For 11

years I have put the safety and well-being of my community

above mine.

I am a proud member of my local union, I am married to a

high school English teacher. When I took the job I was told

my life expectancy would be 10 years less than that of the

average man. As a paramedic I do my job all hours of the

night, all days of the week, 24 hours at a time. I miss

birthdays, holidays, celebrations and much more. I have never

complained until now.

As our country tries to recover from very hard times, I

understand there is a need for reform. It is easy to think

about what someone else has and how it is not fair. My wife

and I worked hard to get where we are. No one has handed it

to us. That is what I love about our country, if you are

willing to work for something then you can be successful.

Public employees are once again asked to make sacrifices.

He is not arguing he will not make sacrifices. But to attack public employees with all that has happened in Ohio, to imply that they are not doing their jobs, they are all slackers, is too much for people who have given so much of their lives serving the public.

This last letter I will read is from Anestis from Canton, OH, a teacher.

My father was a teacher in Canton City schools from 1953 to

1989. He and my mother raised 6 children, of whom I am the

youngest. He taught and coached three sports from the time he

received his job until he retired. He went to school on the

GI bill after World War II. He could have earned a degree in

anything, but he chose teaching because he sincerely wanted

to earn a living through the hard, honest work of teaching

and helping children.

Both of my grandparents were Greek immigrants who came to

this country in 1913 and 1920 through Ellis Island to escape

the suppression in their counties and better their lives. My

grandfathers worked in the factories in Canton so their

children could have an education and better their lives.

I have been teaching for 17 years. My father went on strike

in the 1970's so we can now have collective bargaining, and I

wouldn't be here today [if it were not for that]. Their work

ethic and values of fair play helped my parents raise their

children on a teacher's salary. If our rights are taken away,

I cannot raise my own family--or educate our children.

Going the next step, a number of teachers and a number of college students have told me they are watching some young teachers, they are watching some of their classmates who planned to become teachers or just started their careers in the classroom and they are having second thoughts when they see conservative elected officials attack their profession of public schoolteachers or attack the profession of firefighters or police officers, all because they have a radical political agenda that wants to end the practice of organizing and bargaining collectively. It is a disservice to our country. We know we have a middle class because large numbers of workers--mostly private sector, some public sector--have had the ability under law to organize and bargain collectively. That is what built the middle class. It is not something we should give up lightly.

That is what I heard all over Ohio in the last couple of months. I assume I will hear it for the next couple of months. It is so important to our country that the focus here be on jobs, the focus here be on living-wage jobs, the focus here be on giving opportunities so Americans can stay in the middle class or have the opportunity to join the middle class.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this past spring marked the 2-year anniversary of the end of Sri Lanka's civil war. After more than two decades of fighting and estimated losses of far too many innocent people, Sri Lankans now seek to build a peaceful future from their recent violent past. The task will not be easy. Infrastructure must be rebuilt. Good governance must be established. Education, health care, and a thriving economy must be available for millions of citizens. And so, too, must there be accountability and investigation into alleged violations and abuses of international human rights.

From July 1983 until May 2009, Sri Lanka's civil war claimed the lives of innocent civilians including children and women, seniors and students, many of whom may have fallen victim to violations of international human rights and humanitarian laws. The families of these victims deserve to know the truth about their loved ones' deaths. They need to know that those responsible for the atrocities and violations of basic human rights will be held accountable. This is the only way Sri Lanka can come to grips with its past as it moves forward toward its future.

We have seen how accountability can lead to reconciliation for societies emerging from violent civil strife. South Africa and Northern Ireland are just two recent examples.

The Report of the United Nations Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability In Sri Lanka, released on March 31, 2011, found ``credible allegations, which if proven, indicate that a wide range of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law was committed both by the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), some of which would amount to war crimes against humanity.''

This report further states that ``the conduct of the war represented a grave assault on the entire regime of international law designed to protect individual dignity during both war and peace.''

Under international law, parties responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian or human rights law must be held accountable.

In order to ensure that the Sri Lankan people receive the truth, an independent international inquiry must be established to investigate the credible reports of human rights abuses and humanitarian law violations by the LTTE and the Government of Sri Lanka.

This position is shared by Amnesty International, and other international human rights organizations; the European Union; and the panel of experts who authored the U.N.'s Report on Accountability in Sri Lanka.

Ignoring and denying abuse and accountability delays the progress of nation building and the creation of the stable, multiethnic democracy it seeks.

A truly independent international investigation with credible accountability will give Sri Lanka the ability to reconcile its past and build a peaceful future. The people of Sri Lanka deserve to know the truth.

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

Mr. President, I only wanted to add my voice to yours about Agnes Varis. I appreciate the junior Senator from West Virginia giving me a moment or two.

I have known Agnes for many years. I worked with her on generic drug issues for the last decade--more than that--when I was in the House of Representatives. She had a commitment and a compassion for the underdog that is rare in this world, especially rare for someone as successful as she was.

I remember years ago hearing her story as a Greek immigrant and with a mother who actually could not read and write and how Agnes was so important to that family after her father died when Agnes was a very young woman--a girl still--and how Agnes went to Brooklyn College and was, I believe, the only woman there at the time.

And something else Agnes did--and I apologize to the Senator from New York, now the Presiding Officer, for not hearing all of his remarks. Agnes really stepped up after Hurricane Katrina and helped by not just giving some of her wealth to these musicians who did not have jobs because of the destruction of New Orleans but stepped up and actually hired these musicians so they were actually working, not just getting help from her, hired them to go around to the schools and through much of Louisiana and play for students and teach students music and, if nothing else for those students who had the musical talent that most of us have, which is limited, helped those students appreciate music and appreciate jazz. So she was a terrific woman whom I last saw maybe a month and a half ago. I miss her. I miss her already. I miss her laugh and her smile and her

service not to just New York and New Jersey, where she lived, but much of this country.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

I was on the phone today listening to people call in from Ohio, taking calls. I heard so many people very afraid of the Boehner legislation and what might come out of a further compromise. Senator Reid, as the Senator said, has offered a good many cuts and doing this in a way that is bipartisan.

Is the Senator hearing that in her State there is a real fear that the Republicans in the House are insisting on Social Security and Medicare cuts and what that would mean to people in her State?

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

Mr. President, too many Ohioans are struggling--as are people all over the Nation--in this economy. They are watching Washington with disgust as some politicians are risking economic catastrophe. The House of Representatives continues to waste time as our Nation stands just 4 days away from a catastrophic default. Instead of working with us on a bipartisan basis in the Senate on a compromise measure to prevent a crisis, House Republicans are cutting closed-door deals to find votes on a bill that has no chance of becoming law. We are simply running out of time for these kinds of games.

Only a bipartisan bill coming out of the Senate, negotiated with Republican Leader McConnell and Democratic Leader Reid, provides hope for a way out of this impasse. As the majority leader moves forward, I ask my Republican colleagues across the aisle to proceed with its work and not delay the resolution with filibusters and procedural tricks.

In the spirit of compromise, Majority Leader Reid has come forth with a plan to reduce the deficit by $2.2 trillion. It is truly a compromise because it meets the Republicans' main criteria. It incorporates some of Senator McConnell's language. It contains spending cuts to roughly match the debt ceiling increase through 2012--the spending cuts in the Reid plan are ones Republicans had previously agreed to and, in many cases, advanced--and it contains no revenue increases, all criteria and demands from overwhelming numbers of Senate Republicans.

The majority leader's plan is not perfect. It is not the balanced approach I hoped it would be. But most importantly, right now, it prevents a default, it reduces the deficit--a critical imperative for our children and grandchildren--and it protects Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid.

My office is being swamped with calls and e-mails from Ohioans who cannot believe we are so close to default. I can't either. Let me read a couple letters from Ohio voters. Both of these individuals self- identify as Republicans when they write to me. The first one is from Representative Marcy Kaptur's district, which is in northern Ohio, along the lake. He says:

I am a 40-plus-year-old Republican who has tried to work to

eliminate the tax money we use that is now paid to oil and

gas companies as tax subsidies. I don't like my tax money

being given to these companies with Senators' blessings. I

would like to ask both of you--

He sends this, apparently, to myself and my colleague, Senator Portman--

to support a balanced approach being proposed by the

President and put debt and deficit to bed until an election

can be held and the American people can determine who should

be in Congress. We should have listened to Ronald Reagan when

he said this should not have been undertaken.

Meaning the debt limit issue.

The debt limit is on past bills and should not be raised

and not be used as a political volleyball and upset our

financial institutions.

Another letter writer--again, a Republican--says:

I did not vote for our current President, but I have to

side with him on the debt ceiling issues. I am exhausted by

the political bickering that goes on in Washington. Quit the

child-like fighting and get this thing done. The American

people are tired of it all.

A default would risk what amounts to a permanent tax hike on all Americans. Interest rates could rise for anyone applying for a home mortgage, a car loan or a college loan. Credit costs for all borrowers would climb. Governments at every level, businesses, not for profits, homeowners, credit card holders, even several States have already been placed on a credit watch. Every State would be hurt by a Federal default, which is why Governors of both parties are calling for a deal.

There could be repercussions for pension funds and money market funds that guard the retirement savings of middle-class families. A default on our obligations would be a knockout blow to the financial security of the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System. These are public employees who have spent their lives working in Ohio's courts and schools and many other public positions in local and State government. That is why the Director of OPERS--the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System--sent a letter with nine of her colleagues pleading:

America is now a debtor nation and must show the world the

nation's word is its bond. It is critical that the debt

ceiling be raised to avoid a default.

The Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, obviously, represents Republicans and Democrats alike.

As a member of the Senate Banking Committee, I heard Chairman Ben Bernanke, a Republican appointee, speak in March, and he said default would be ``an extremely dangerous and very likely recovering-ending event.''

Just today, several mayors of Ohio's large- and medium- sized cities--for example, the cities of Hillsboro, South Euclid, Chillicothe, North Royalton, Lancaster, Akron, Middletown, Shaker Heights, Reynoldsburg, Dayton, Steubenville, Solon, Newark, Fairfield, and other cities, Republicans and Democrats alike--wrote:

As Mayors, we rely on the partnership of the federal

government to help us create jobs and grow our communities.

Uncertainty surrounding the federal budget puts key programs

like Community Development Block Grants and Community

Oriented Policing Services in jeopardy. Job-creating

infrastructure projects would come to a halt without the full

support of our federal partners. Inaction on the debt ceiling

threatens programs like Social Security that our citizens

rely on to survive.

I have heard the Presiding Officer--in a meeting today, in fact--talk passionately about the uncertainty this would inject into our economy-- to follow the House lead--and do this again in 6 months and the irresponsibility of that proposal. As difficult as this has been for people on all sides and the contentiousness and anger, it doesn't matter whether we are angry or it is contentious around here, but what does matter is the message it sends to main street--Main Street Connecticut, Main Street Hartford, Main Street Columbus, Main Street New Haven and Toledo. When businesses are thinking about expansion, when they are thinking about taking a loan out or thinking about borrowing money, they are not going to do it when we are in the midst of a financial crisis such as we are in now. If we were going to do this again in 6 months, you can bet we would have the same kind of divisions, the same kind of arguments.

The assistant majority leader told the story today about a Chicago businessperson who is terrified of this and what would happen if we didn't raise the debt ceiling, if we went into default; what might happen 6 months from now if we went through it again.

So the responsible position is for this body, on a bipartisan basis, to work on

the McConnell-Reid plan, to pass this, send it to the House of Representatives, and for them to pass it. We can then focus on job creation and on deficit reduction, but we will have moved forward together in a way that we have not for far too long a period of time.

Of course.

That is surely not my impression. I appreciate the comments from the assistant majority leader from Illinois.

I listen to the words, as I have read, that Ronald Reagan said. The debt limit was raised 18 times in the 8 years of the Reagan administration, and each time it was, there were people who didn't like doing it. Nobody likes to vote for that. But there was never this: let's go up to the edge and take a chance. President Reagan always preached--as Presidents have since in both parties--that this is not a risk we can take, and I know this.

I hear from Social Security beneficiaries, I hear from veterans, I hear from small businesspeople, and I hear from contractors around Wright-Patterson Air Force Base that they don't think we should take this risk, that they are--some use the word ``terrified'' getting this close to default, and most can't really believe we are this close. I can't, either.

The Senator from Illinois and I have talked about this many times over the last few months, that we figured there would not be these lines in the sand and this belief that it doesn't matter if we default and we would get to a solution. But we haven't been able to.

But no responsible people in elected office that I can think of in the last 30 or 40 years have wanted to go this close to default and play chicken and just think, well, maybe it won't hurt us much. We know what happens with interest rates. We know what might happen with Social Security checks and veterans' benefits and prison guard pay and airport safety and food inspectors--all of those functions that matter. I don't know why any responsible leader in this body or the other body would want to take that risk.

I thank the Senator for that comment and question. This is clearly more dangerous for our economy and our country, from Wall Street to Main Street, than what happened when they closed the government down 15 years ago or threatened to a few months ago. That was troubling, and that was damaging to our country, but we don't know what exactly would happen here. We are almost sure interest rates would go up. We are almost sure many people who benefit from government services directly would see those benefits go away. Whether it is a Social Security check or whether it is food safety or running the airports safely, all of those things would be at risk.

I have heard a lot of sort of brouhaha or a lot of strong words out of the House and a lot of promises, but there seems to be too many people in that Chamber who don't really see the seriousness of this, don't see that this really does put our economy in jeopardy.

You know, it is not just our economy. That is the most important part, but it is also our reputation around the world. It is the strength of the dollar. It is the blot on our national reputation. I haven't been to Europe in a long time, but I hear reports from people around the world that they are saying: What is going on in the United States of America that you can't even agree on raising the debt ceiling so you can really focus on things such as jobs?

I had a meeting just last week--Senator Rockefeller and I, earlier this week--and there were eight or nine Senators who joined us to talk about focusing on a jobs agenda and what we need to do to restore American manufacturing. In a State such as Illinois, and in Connecticut--the other Senator from Connecticut was in our meeting and talked about Bridgeport and New Haven and all the manufacturing that is done in this country. We are still a major manufacturing country. This is going to hurt manufacturers. It is going to mean they can't borrow to meet payroll or borrow to expand or borrow to create more jobs.

Why would we risk any of this instead of getting this done by focusing on job growth, and focusing on getting our budget in order? We know how do this. In the 1990s--and the Presiding Officer and the assistant majority leader were very much part of it--in the 1990s, we got to, one, a balanced budget and, second, we got to 21 million private sector jobs net increase because we passed a responsible budget. It had some tax increases for upper income people. It also had some tax breaks in it for middle-income people. It also had major cuts and major investments. And we did all of that because we wrote a thoughtful budget--didn't get a lot of help from the other side, but put that aside, we did it right, we got to a budget surplus, and we created 21 million jobs. We know how do this. But we didn't see anybody playing these kinds of games: Maybe we just let the debt ceiling go and go into default. We just could not take this chance.

I thank the Senator from Illinois.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 113, S. Res. 175.

Mr. President, I know of no further debate. I ask the Senate to vote on the adoption of the resolution.

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