Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, for over a week the Senate has been debating the Economic Development and Revitalization Act of 2011, which would reauthorize funding for existing programs of the Commerce Department's U.S. Economic Development Administration through 2015. EDA has traditionally been noncontroversial, traditionally been a bipartisan job-creation bill supported by Presidents of both parties, often supported in this body without dissent. It helps broker deals between the public and private sectors, which is critical to our economic recovery and growth. It is particularly important to economically distressed communities, particularly in tough economic times.

Every $1 in EDA grant funding leverages nearly $7 worth of private investment. Every $10,000 in EDA investment in business incubators--or accelerators, as some call them--helps entrepreneurs start up companies in which nearly 70 jobs are created.

In Ohio--and I don't think it is much different in the Presiding Officer's State of Colorado--we have seen since 2006 that some 40 EDA grants worth $36 million have leveraged a total of more than $87 million since private resources were matched. Colleges and universities, from Bowling Green in northwest Ohio, to Ohio University in southeast Ohio, to Miami University in southwest Ohio, have received EDA funds. So, too, have port authorities in Toledo in the west and Ashtabula in the far northeast and entrepreneurs in Cleveland and Appalachia.

If we are to strengthen our competitiveness, we will need to equip businesses with the tools they need to thrive. That is what EDA is designed to do. It is the front door for communities facing sudden and severe economic distress. When economic disaster hits, communities turn to the government, and it is EDA that does the job at low cost, leveraging all kinds of private dollars.

EDA has helped redevelop the former GM plant in Moraine, OH, near Dayton, and the DHL plant in Wilmington. Ashtabula's Plant C received EDA investments to make vital repairs.

The bill the Senate is considering would strengthen a proven job- creating program. It would reduce regulatory burdens to increase flexibility for grantees. It would encourage public-private partnerships that we have already seen make a difference in my State. And the bill would better streamline EDA cooperation with other Federal, State, and local agencies to better assist communities with local economic development.

I plan to offer two amendments to further strengthen EDA. One would assist communities when a plant closure or downsizing causes economic distress, such as Wilmington or Moraine. The amendment gives special preference to auto communities. The other amendment would make more Ohio communities eligible to receive funds for business incubators. Ohio is home to the National Business Incubator Association in Athens, OH, and several model business incubators, from Toledo, to Shaker Heights, to Youngstown. This amendment would allow more companies in Ohio and more communities in Ohio to support homegrown entrepreneurship.

Two weeks ago, I visited--as I have in several places around the State--an incubator in Shaker Heights called the Launch House. It was an old car dealership that had been closed down several years ago. It was renovated with relatively little money. It is now home to about 40 entrepreneurs, one- and two-person startup operations, with the average age of these young entrepreneurs being under 30. The great majority of these 35 or 40 entrepreneurs are themselves under 30. Some of these startups won't exist in 2 years. Some will have grown in 2 years. Many will be hiring lots of people in the years ahead. Some will fail, some will succeed.

As I pointed out earlier, only $10,000 of EDA investment in a business incubator, on average, creates somewhere in the vicinity of 50, 60, or 70 jobs. If we want to promote an economy fueled by innovation, we must better equip our entrepreneurs with the resources they need to turn an idea in the lab to a product in the market.

Earlier this year, I held an innovation roundtable at Battelle with leading Ohio entrepreneurs and business leaders where we discussed the need to strengthen workforce development, promote business entrepreneurship, and support city planning. EDA assistance, they told me--as do other business leaders around the State and as entrepreneurs do tell--is critical to these goals.

This is legislation on which we should move forward. I am sorry my friends on the other side of the aisle who have been so supportive of EDA in the past--as it has always been bipartisan--seem to be standing in the way of this. It is important to move forward, so I ask for the Senate's support.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the All- American Made Flag Act, on this 234th celebration of Flag Day in our Nation, On June 14, 1777, the Second Continental Congress first adopted a flag for our new country, bestowing a meaning to the stars and stripes of our founding commitment to freedom and democracy.

Our flag inspires servicemembers in times of war; it looks over state capitals and schools, stadiums and veterans halls as a reminder of the price of our peace and security. It stood through the smoke in Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and the rubble in New York City and Washington D.C. on September 11, 2001. The flag instills hope of a better life for generations of immigrants, embodying an aspiration of free people around the world. Americans pledge allegiance to the flag, reminding us about our Nation's history, and the system of checks and balances and separation of powers that tenders the balance of our laws and freedoms.

The flag that inspired our national anthem rests in the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History. Smaller, hand-held flags are waived during Fourth of July Parades and on Memorial Day are placed alongside headstones. But whether in museums or in parades or upon memorials, the American flag reaffirms the power and meaning first ascribed to it by our founders.

And what better way to celebrate its meaning, our Nation's history and virtue, than to ensure it is stamped with the Made-in-America label. On this day, I introduce the All-American Made Flag Act, which would require that American flags purchased by the Federal Government are entirely made in America.

Across the nation, and especially in Ohio, manufacturers and businesses have been making and selling American flags for generations. In Coschocton, Ohio, the nation's oldest and largest producer of American flags has been doing so since 1851. From the first World's Fair in New York City, through the Civil War and World War II, and into the universe and onto the moon these flags, made in Coschocton, have played a role in our nation's history. Today, on Flag Day, it joins other businesses that sell All-American made American flags, from Cincinnati to Dayton to Columbus to Cleveland.

Few things can give better meaning to the Made-in-America label than our own flag. The All-American Made Flag Act would provide that meaning, and in doing so, would invest in America's workers and manufacturers who embody the ingenuity and patriotism embodied in the very flag itself.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the All- American Made Flag Act, on this 234th celebration of Flag Day in our Nation, On June 14, 1777, the Second Continental Congress first adopted a flag for our new country, bestowing a meaning to the stars and stripes of our founding commitment to freedom and democracy.

Our flag inspires servicemembers in times of war; it looks over state capitals and schools, stadiums and veterans halls as a reminder of the price of our peace and security. It stood through the smoke in Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and the rubble in New York City and Washington D.C. on September 11, 2001. The flag instills hope of a better life for generations of immigrants, embodying an aspiration of free people around the world. Americans pledge allegiance to the flag, reminding us about our Nation's history, and the system of checks and balances and separation of powers that tenders the balance of our laws and freedoms.

The flag that inspired our national anthem rests in the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History. Smaller, hand-held flags are waived during Fourth of July Parades and on Memorial Day are placed alongside headstones. But whether in museums or in parades or upon memorials, the American flag reaffirms the power and meaning first ascribed to it by our founders.

And what better way to celebrate its meaning, our Nation's history and virtue, than to ensure it is stamped with the Made-in-America label. On this day, I introduce the All-American Made Flag Act, which would require that American flags purchased by the Federal Government are entirely made in America.

Across the nation, and especially in Ohio, manufacturers and businesses have been making and selling American flags for generations. In Coschocton, Ohio, the nation's oldest and largest producer of American flags has been doing so since 1851. From the first World's Fair in New York City, through the Civil War and World War II, and into the universe and onto the moon these flags, made in Coschocton, have played a role in our nation's history. Today, on Flag Day, it joins other businesses that sell All-American made American flags, from Cincinnati to Dayton to Columbus to Cleveland.

Few things can give better meaning to the Made-in-America label than our own flag. The All-American Made Flag Act would provide that meaning, and in doing so, would invest in America's workers and manufacturers who embody the ingenuity and patriotism embodied in the very flag itself.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from California, and I thank the Senator from South Dakota also for his indulgence. I will be no more than 10 minutes.

I listened to Senator Boxer. This EDA issue is important for job creation. I know when it comes to something such as this, there is a whole array of issues that EDA is involved with in job creation. Just one of them is what EDA does with incubators and accelerators.

Last week, I was in Shaker Heights, OH, at a place called the LaunchHouse. It used to be an auto dealership, and there are now 40 entrepreneurs working there. We know EDA investment, public dollar investment, in these incubators pays real dividends. The EDA estimates a $10,000 investment creates 50 or more jobs. We are seeing that in places such as Shaker Heights and Youngstown, one of the best incubators in the country. Athens, OH, is the home of the National Association of Incubators, and they know what that means.

Before the Senator from Alaska was presiding, I was in the chair presiding and listening to some of this debate. I am a bit amazed by it. First of all, let's remember a little bit of history. I hear the talking points, apparently distributed to all 47 of the Republican Senators, all coming to the floor and blaming government regulation for every problem known to humankind. They are forgetting government regulation is seat belts, airbags, safe drinking water, prohibition on child labor, the Food and Drug Administration so our food is pure and our pharmaceuticals are safe. But they lump it all together and say get rid of all this government regulation. I think the history they need to think about is the last time they preached on the Senate floor about deregulation, they were successful in deregulating Wall Street, and look what happened to that.

When I hear this sort of preachy: ``We have to get rid of government regulation,'' let's be a little more specific. There are some regulations, to be sure, that we should do away with. But when I hear them talk about trillions of dollars of regulation, a lot of that is what keeps our food pure, our drinking water safe, our workplaces safe, our quality of life better for the broad middle class. Let's not forget that.

I wish to speak for the last 5 or 6 minutes about something my colleagues and I will be debating fairly soon; that is, the pending trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. It is a bit of deja vu--as Yogi Berra said, deja vu all over again. The promise of jobs is an echo we hear about every 3 or 4 years: Time to do a new free-trade agreement; time to promise lots and lots of new job creation; promise more exports for the United States. We heard it with NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, almost 20 years ago. We heard it with PNTR with China in the late 1990s. We heard it with the Central American Free Trade Agreement in the last decade--2003, 2004, 2005, 2006--and now we are hearing it again with Colombia and South Korea and Panama.

I recall both Republican and Democratic administrations saying 200,000 new jobs created by NAFTA. I heard proponents of PNTR promise a more balanced trade relationship with China, and new, increased exports. We have seen increased exports to China but nothing like the number of--there were jobs created because of that, I acknowledge that, but nothing like the export of goods from China to the United States, which, in essence, is outsourcing jobs in the United States.

There is a company in Bryan, OH, called the Ohio Art Company. They make something we are all familiar with, and that is the Etch A Sketch. We all played with it as kids. Walmart went to that company--the biggest retailer in the history of the world--and said: We want to sell your product for less than $10 at Walmart. Do my colleagues know what they did? They basically shut down production in the United States and moved to China so they could sell it for $10, costing hundreds of jobs in that northwest Ohio community.

Before PNTR, before these promises about increased jobs, we had a $68 billion trade deficit in goods with China. Last year, it was $273 billion. About $600 million or $700 million every single day we bring in--we buy from China, then we sell to China. I hear this word ``unsustainable'' in this body all the time about Medicare, whatever they are talking about. But this is what is unsustainable. We can't keep adding to that trade deficit and think we are going to have good jobs.

In April alone, our trade deficit with China was $21 billion--in 1 month, $21 billion. So when I hear, this year, the Korean Free Trade Agreement--and the President of the United States is going to submit it to Congress fairly soon, I assume, depending on what happens with the trade adjustment assistance; and this President has made this agreement with Korea, significantly better than the last President's trade agreement with Korea but not all that good yet--the Congressional Budget Office estimates this agreement will cost--in addition to the jobs issue, but hold on to that for a second--about $7 billion over the next 10 years--$7 billion.

My conservative friends on the other side of the aisle are going to say: How are we going to pay for $7 billion? They want to offset cuts, they want to offset any other kind of spending, but they do not seem to want to offset spending on this trade agreement. So this trade agreement is costing us $7 billion. So free trade simply is not free.

The administration says this agreement is expected to support--not create--70,000 jobs. Do the math. It is about $100,000 for every job supported. But do another piece of math, if I could ask the indulgence of the Presiding Officer. George Bush the first said for every $1 billion trade deficit or surplus, that translates--these are his numbers--into about 13,000 jobs. So when I mentioned that trade deficit with China a minute ago--$21 billion in just April alone--for every $1 billion, 13,000 jobs are either gained or lost. If it is a trade deficit of $21 billion, that means 13,000 jobs for every $1 billion of loss. So you can see, without belaboring this point or putting too fine a point on it, there is significant job loss from these trade agreements.

The Obama administration sought to address the Bush administration's neglect of American automakers, which the free-trade agreement the Bush administration negotiated with Korea did. But I fear we have not gone far enough. Korea is the most closed automotive market in the world to America and other foreign autos. No manufacturer can export vehicles in significant volumes into Korea--not Toyota, not Volkswagen, not Ford, not Fiat. U.S. vehicle exports to Korea in 2010 were 7,500 units. In a country approaching perhaps 90 million people in Korea--80, 90, 95 million people--we sell them 7,500 cars? Imports currently make up about 6 percent of the Korean auto market.

Six percent of the cars driven around in South Korea are made somewhere other than South Korea. That is not quite fair trade.

This bill, this Korean Free Trade Agreement, does not get us there. The Obama administration approved it, but nothing like it needs to be. So I just caution my colleagues, the Korea Free Trade Agreement is a permanent agreement. If we pass this agreement in a couple months, what we pass in establishing that formalized trade agreement with that major industrial country in East Asia is a permanent relationship.

It does not sunset like a so-called authorization. It does not sunset the way many of my colleagues have recently let the trade adjustment assistance lapse for service workers and for workers who lose their jobs to countries we do not have a free-trade agreement with. Some of my colleagues insist trade adjustment assistance needs to be reauthorized in the short-term, little baby steps, year-by-year intervals, while they press for more permanent trade agreements.

Here is the deal. Madam President, I know you in North Carolina have shown real leadership on these trade relationships. Here is the deal conservative politicians in the Senate and in the House of Representatives want. They want us to pass permanent trade agreements, but then they may want to take care of workers for just 1 year at a time, 6 months at time--6 weeks at a time the last time they reauthorized this.

This does not make sense. The trade agreement with Korea is a significant problem for job growth in our country and for protecting jobs in our country. There is nothing wrong with the word ``protecting'' jobs in our country. But at the same time, before we even consider that, we need to make sure we pass the trade adjustment assistance. We should have learned our lessons from NAFTA, from NPTR with China, from CAFTA, and from these other trade agreements that the promises coming from an administration on job creation, when it comes to trade agreements, are mostly empty promises.

I yield the floor.

I thank Senator Thune from South Dakota for his indulgence.

Mr. President, for the last couple weeks, I traveled to senior centers from Toledo to Youngstown to Columbus to talk with seniors and health professionals about the threats facing their Medicare benefits. We owe it to our children, we owe it to our grandchildren, we owe it to succeeding generations to reduce our Nation's deficit. We know almost exactly one decade ago we had the largest budget surplus in the history of our country. We know during the next 8 years--as Congress and President Bush cut taxes mostly on the wealthy in 2001 and 2003, began two wars with Iraq and Afghanistan and didn't pay for them, did a prescription drug benefit, a supposed benefit that was, in many ways, a bailout for the drug and insurance companies and didn't pay for it, and deregulated Wall Street--during those 8 years, we had the largest budget deficit in American history. We went from the largest budget surplus in American history to the largest budget deficit in American history.

What we see in the Republican budget now, as we talk about Medicare and as they talk about Medicare--ending Medicare as we know it, turning Medicare over to the insurance companies--what we are seeing is sort of the same old game, the same old song from people who do not much like Medicare; that is, cut taxes on the wealthy again and pay for those tax cuts--you have to find a way to pay for them--I guess, pay for those tax cuts by cutting the Medicare benefits seniors have earned. That is what is troubling to me about this Republican budget.

Too many Americans are facing a middle-class squeeze, working hard, playing by the rules, finding it still hard to get ahead in this economy. Many parents, many Americans in their forties and fifties and sixties are part of a sandwich generation. They are helping their parents as their medical costs go up and their parents are not earning very much. They are maybe getting Social Security, maybe something else, and they are trying to pay for their children's college, so this is the wrong time, as if there would ever be a right time, to turn Medicare over to the insurance industry, Medicare as we know it.

That is why Senators Cardin from Maryland, McCaskill of Missouri, and Tester of Montana wrote a letter to the Vice President calling for the Republican plan to end Medicare as we know it to be taken off the table during the deficit reduction negotiations.

I want to see our deficit reduced. I want to see us have a long-term plan to get our budget deficit under control the way we did in the 1990s and turned budget problems inherited by President Clinton-- bequeathed by Presidents Reagan and Bush, inherited by President Clinton--how we got from a budget deficit to a budget surplus.

The statistics behind Medicare are clear. The number of seniors lifted out of poverty in these 45 years, the number of families who have the help to care for a parent or grandparent--we can't reverse those gains for the ultimate form of rationing health care for seniors. Make no mistake, this is rationing health care. When you shift the cost, you give a senior citizen a voucher--you give them an $8,000 check, and that check goes to insurance companies to pay for health insurance. If it runs short, what happens--and it likely will--they pay out-of-pocket. That really is rationing. If you are not a fairly wealthy senior and you run out of this privatized Medicare voucher, you will reach into your pockets and pay for it. That is rationing because many seniors won't be able to pay for it.

When I hear the terms ``death panels'' and ``rationing'' and all these things that conservative politicians usually enthralled in the insurance industry are telling this Chamber and down the hall in the House of Representatives--real rationing is when seniors can not afford to pay out-of-pocket for their health insurance costs because of what this Republican budget plan does. Their plan calls for vouchers for private health coverage, doubling their out-of-pocket costs in the first year alone. The average senior would receive an $8,000 voucher; however, in the first year of the voucher program, out-of-pocket expenses would, according to the Congressional Budget Office--not a Democratic group, not a Republican group, a down-the-middle group--the Congressional Budget Office said seniors' out-of-pocket expenses would double to more than $12,500 annually. As I said, at the same time, Republicans are going to take these savings to the budget, these cuts to senior care, to Medicare, and finance tax cuts for those people who earn 10 times or more than the average retirement income of a Medicare recipient.

Seniors would see their prescription drug costs explode. In the health care bill, we cut the costs of prescription drugs to those seniors who are in the coverage gap, the so-called doughnut hole, cut them in half. That would go away. In other words, the Republican budget plan in my State across the river from the Presiding Officer's State would hand an $89 million prescription drug bill tab to split among 139,000 Ohio seniors. Tens of thousands of Ohio seniors, thousands of West Virginia seniors, tens of thousands of seniors in the assistant majority leader's State of Illinois would be paying tens of millions of dollars in higher drug costs as a result of the Republican budget bill. The Senate voted that bill down, largely along party lines.

Republicans continue to want to privatize Medicare, to turn Medicare over to the insurance industry. It simply would put insurance companies in charge of Medicare. It would put insurance companies in charge of the health of our seniors.

Is that what we want? That is why we had Medicare in 1965, because insurance companies were in charge of health care for seniors, meaning half of the seniors had no health insurance--people over 65 in the year 1965. Now roughly 99 percent of seniors have health insurance, and that is because of this program that most of us dearly love and the huge majority of our constituents in West Virginia, Illinois, and Ohio love, and that is called Medicare.

Now, Mr. President, put aside all I have said for a moment. Forget about vouchers, forget about privatization, forget about insurance companies even, and think in a personal way about what Medicare has done in this country.

Medicare was created in 1965, passed mostly by Democrats in the House and Senate, signed by President Lyndon Johnson in July of 1965. We have had Medicare for 45 years. Think about what it has done. Forget all the academic and policy questions. What Medicare has done is helped people in this country live longer, healthier lives. What that means is people have been able to get to know their grandchildren. Somebody who is 65 or 70 or 75 or 80, and enjoys generally good health, has had years-- maybe decades--of helping to raise a grandchild, getting to know their granddaughter, getting to play with their grandson, all the things grandparents want to do. Senior citizens have had a greater quality of life because of what we call Medicare, and they have gotten to know their grandchildren better.

Think what that means to children. They have gotten to know their grandparents better and have gotten the kind of guidance only grandparents can give. Margaret Mead, the great anthropologist, a few decades ago said ``wisdom and knowledge are passed from grandparent to grandchild.'' Wisdom and knowledge are passed from grandparent to grandchild, because we all know if we have children, our kids don't always listen to us but our grandchildren do.

I have a 3-year-old grandson named Clayton who lives in Columbus, OH. When I am in Washington, my wife picks him up a lot of days after school. We don't live in Columbus, but she goes down there and picks him up after school. Every day Clayton gets to spend with his grandmother and, when I am home, every weekend with his grandfather. I get to see Clayton not as often as I want but fairly often.

What Margaret Mead said is right. Grandparents impart a special wisdom and knowledge to grandchildren. Think of the benefit grandchildren have because of their grandparents. I wouldn't have looked at it quite the same way until I had my first grandson 3 years ago, but I understand that now.

That, to me, is the real beauty of Medicare. It has helped this country's seniors live longer healthier lives and has helped this country's children be raised in a moral way, in a practical way, in an educational way, better than they would have if their grandparents hadn't been around.

When I hear Republicans say they want to get rid of Medicare as we know it, they want to turn Medicare and senior health care over to the insurance industry, we know what will happen. Seniors won't live longer healthier lives because they will have lost Medicare as we know it.

That is why we sent a letter to Vice President Biden--Senator Tester, Senator McCaskill, Senator Cardin, and I did--to say, take Medicare off the table. We need to deal with this budget deficit, but don't mess with Medicare while we are doing it. It is that simple.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this month marks commencement season at our great colleges and universities across Ohio and the Nation. I have had the honor of speaking at a few this year--Owens Community College, Ashland University, Cleveland Marshall College of Law, and Ohio Northern University.

It is a day of achievement and accomplishment, a reaffirmation of why education is a key to our economic prosperity. But it is also a day of anxiety. Graduates are leaving campuses to enter a difficult job market saddled with student debt.

Approximately 2/3 of Ohioans who attend a private or public 4-year college or university graduate with an average of nearly $26,000 in student loan debt. Unfortunately, as student loan debt levels continue to grow, the Nation's hiring climate remains sluggish. This has led to limited employment opportunities for recent graduates; nearly half of the 2009 graduating class is currently unemployed or employed in a position that does not require a college degree.

Such circumstances are leading to undue personal stress and potentially, a lifetime of financial challenges. Far too often, individuals and families are becoming part of the ``sandwich generation'' where families are paying for the cost of their children's education while also taking care of their aging parents.

That is why last year I supported--and the President signed into law, the Health and Education Reconciliation Act, the single largest federal investment in student aid in generations. The law ends wasteful subsidies to private lenders through the Federal Family Education Loan, FFEL, Program. In doing so, we cut out the middleman and loans are now not only originated, but also serviced, by the U.S. Department of Education.

By ending subsidies to private banks, we saved billions of dollars, and used the savings to allow the maximum Pell Grant award to reach a historic level. We made it easier for students to repay loans through the Income-Based Repayment Program. We did this all at no cost to the taxpayer.

For many colleges and universities, the transition from FFEL to the Direct Loan program has been a resounding success as there has been no disruption to borrowers or financial aid administrators.

For those borrowers who are in the middle of the transition period, I, along with my good colleague Senator Franken, am introducing the Student Loan Simplification and Opportunity Act. This legislation, by simplifying loan repayment and reducing the loan amount, benefits college graduates. And this legislation, by removing costly subsidies provided to private lenders, saves 1.8 billion dollars that will be reinvested in the Pell Grant Program, thereby ensuring that other deserving students can afford to attend college.

The Student Loan Simplification and Opportunity Act would allow students with both FFEL loans and Direct Loans to voluntarily transfer their FFEL debt to a Direct Loan servicer over a nine-month period.

By converting loans, the likelihood that a borrower may miss a payment and end up further in debt would decrease. On average, a borrower with multiple loan servicers has a 20 percent higher chance of defaulting on their loan payments. Yet, this program not only simplifies a borrower's loan repayment, it reduces the amount owed. Borrowers who transferred their debt would be rewarded with up to a 2 percent reduction in the principal amount of their FFEL loan.

I am proud to introduce the Student Loan Simplification and Opportunity Act, as this legislation will benefit both borrowers and taxpayers.

Mr. President, this month marks commencement season at our great colleges and universities across Ohio and the Nation. I have had the honor of speaking at a few this year--Owens Community College, Ashland University, Cleveland Marshall College of Law, and Ohio Northern University.

It is a day of achievement and accomplishment, a reaffirmation of why education is a key to our economic prosperity. But it is also a day of anxiety. Graduates are leaving campuses to enter a difficult job market saddled with student debt.

Approximately 2/3 of Ohioans who attend a private or public 4-year college or university graduate with an average of nearly $26,000 in student loan debt. Unfortunately, as student loan debt levels continue to grow, the Nation's hiring climate remains sluggish. This has led to limited employment opportunities for recent graduates; nearly half of the 2009 graduating class is currently unemployed or employed in a position that does not require a college degree.

Such circumstances are leading to undue personal stress and potentially, a lifetime of financial challenges. Far too often, individuals and families are becoming part of the ``sandwich generation'' where families are paying for the cost of their children's education while also taking care of their aging parents.

That is why last year I supported--and the President signed into law, the Health and Education Reconciliation Act, the single largest federal investment in student aid in generations. The law ends wasteful subsidies to private lenders through the Federal Family Education Loan, FFEL, Program. In doing so, we cut out the middleman and loans are now not only originated, but also serviced, by the U.S. Department of Education.

By ending subsidies to private banks, we saved billions of dollars, and used the savings to allow the maximum Pell Grant award to reach a historic level. We made it easier for students to repay loans through the Income-Based Repayment Program. We did this all at no cost to the taxpayer.

For many colleges and universities, the transition from FFEL to the Direct Loan program has been a resounding success as there has been no disruption to borrowers or financial aid administrators.

For those borrowers who are in the middle of the transition period, I, along with my good colleague Senator Franken, am introducing the Student Loan Simplification and Opportunity Act. This legislation, by simplifying loan repayment and reducing the loan amount, benefits college graduates. And this legislation, by removing costly subsidies provided to private lenders, saves 1.8 billion dollars that will be reinvested in the Pell Grant Program, thereby ensuring that other deserving students can afford to attend college.

The Student Loan Simplification and Opportunity Act would allow students with both FFEL loans and Direct Loans to voluntarily transfer their FFEL debt to a Direct Loan servicer over a nine-month period.

By converting loans, the likelihood that a borrower may miss a payment and end up further in debt would decrease. On average, a borrower with multiple loan servicers has a 20 percent higher chance of defaulting on their loan payments. Yet, this program not only simplifies a borrower's loan repayment, it reduces the amount owed. Borrowers who transferred their debt would be rewarded with up to a 2 percent reduction in the principal amount of their FFEL loan.

I am proud to introduce the Student Loan Simplification and Opportunity Act, as this legislation will benefit both borrowers and taxpayers.

Mr. President, yesterday the Senate conducted a procedural vote on whether it would begin deliberation on S. 1038, the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011.

Due to inclement weather, my flight from Cleveland returned to Cleveland, and I was unable to make this vote. However, if I had been in attendance, I would have voted ``yea.''

I have long expressed concerns about the PATRIOT Act, specifically about its scope and effectiveness. For too long, Americans have been asked to cede their constitutional rights in the name of national security. There is no question that our law enforcement authorities need the tools to fight terrorism and keep Americans safe, but security is not a zero sum game. Indeed, it is certainly possible to extend the PATRIOT Act while building in some additional checks and balances. But this extension does not include them.

Despite my misgivings about this extension, I believe that it is important that the Senate directly address this legislation that is important to both our Nation's security and well as our civil liberties.

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

Mr. President, I appreciate the words of the Senator from Nebraska about these trade agreements. I take them at face value. I know he means well. I know he believes these trade agreements help the American people.

I also know every time there is a major trade agreement in front of this Congress--the Presiding Officer's first one, I believe, and mine, was something called the North American Free Trade Agreement. They promised and promised, saying there would be all kinds of jobs and our trade surplus would grow; that it would be not just more jobs but better paying jobs. It did not quite work out that way with NAFTA.

Then they did the same kind of promise and overpromise with PNTR, normal trade relations with China. In Mexico with NAFTA we had a trade surplus not too many years before NAFTA was signed, and it turned into a multibillion-dollar trade deficit.

With China we had a small trade deficit. A deficit in trade means we buy more from that country than we sell to that country. President Bush said a $1 billion trade surplus or deficit turns into--he had different estimates, but between 13,000 and 19,000 jobs is what he used to say. Whether or not that is precise is a bit beside the point. The point is, if we are selling a lot more than we are buying, it is going to create jobs in our country. If we are buying a lot more than we are selling, we are going to lose manufacturing jobs.

We went to literally hundreds of billions of dollars in trade deficit with China after PNTR. If we go into any store in the country we see the number of products made in China that used to be made in Vermont or Ohio or Michigan or Pennsylvania or Mississippi or wherever. So we know with these trade agreements, every time they come to the floor the promise is they are going to create jobs for Americans. They did it with NAFTA. They did it with PNTR with China. They did it with the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Now they are saying the same thing with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia, that it is going to create American jobs. Well, it doesn't ever. Maybe the theory is good. I don't think the theory is very good, but maybe it is, but it doesn't seem to work out that way.

I urge my colleagues to listen to what these supporters of trade agreements say, to be sure; trust but verify. Ask the tough questions: Why is this going to create more jobs? We know the cost of the South Korea trade agreement is literally $7 billion. It is going to cost us a lot of money. They are not paying for it. These fiscal conservatives here don't want to take away the subsidies from the oil industry. They also don't want to pay for the trade agreement that is going to cost us $7 billion, plus the lost jobs that come about as a result.

We know what these lost jobs mean to Mansfield, OH. We know what they mean to Sandusky and Chillicothe and Cleveland and Dayton, proud cities with a proud middle class that have seen these manufacturing jobs so often go straight to Mexico, go straight to China, go straight to countries all over the world after we sign these trade agreements or after we change these rules about trade.

At a minimum, I have asked the President of the United States by letter, with 35 or so Senators who also signed this letter--and we will release it and send it to the President tomorrow--underscoring the President's commitment and the commitment of the U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Kirk, and the President's economic adviser, Gene Sperling, who said they will not send these free trade agreements to the Congress until the President has had an opportunity to sign trade adjustment assistance.

Trade adjustment assistance simply says when you lose your job because of a trade agreement, you at least are eligible for assistance for job retraining. To me, the problem is the trade agreements and they are costing us jobs. But at a minimum, the great majority of Democratic Senators here understands, along with the President, that we don't pass these trade agreements without helping these workers who are going to lose their jobs.

To me, it is a little bit counterintuitive: Why pass these trade agreements at all if we expect job loss to come from them. But the other side of the argument is that jobs will increase overall, although it doesn't seem to work that way. But everybody knows some people are going to lose jobs as a

result of these trade agreements. That is a bit of circular thinking that I don't particularly buy. But at a minimum, because so often when these trade agreements pass, conservative Republican--sort of pro corporate interest--Senators, will say, Well, we want to take care of these workers and let's pass a trade agreement, and then they don't get around to taking care of the workers. That is why we have to do trade adjustment assistance first and to begin to enforce these trade rules.

We saw in Ohio alone in the last 3 or 4 years, because we enforced some trade rules--because the President of the United States, President Obama, and the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission stood up and enforced trade rules on China's gaming the system on tires, on oil country tubular steel, and less so, but on coded paper--we have seen jobs in the United States come back because we are leveling the playing field so they can't game the system as much.

That is why it is important that we take care of workers before these trade agreements come to the Congress and then we will debate trade agreements. I hope we can defeat them--I think it is going to be hard-- and we make sure we do the enforcement of these trade rules that are now in existence that are now part of the law and get that in place and strengthen that before we pass these trade agreements.

It is a pretty simple thing to do, but it is important. In one of the trade agreements the Senator from Nebraska mentioned, he was talking about the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. I could speak on each of the three to the point of perhaps boring some of my colleagues. But on the one trade agreement that is particularly egregious with the country of Colombia, just last year, 50 trade unionists, 50 labor activists in Colombia were murdered--50 murders. They are saying, the supporters of these trade agreements say yes, but they are getting better in Colombia and fewer trade activists are getting murdered so it is getting better.

Not that long ago, a labor rights lawyer was shot. He did not die. He survived, was injured badly. There is something a bit untoward about saying to this country, because you are getting better and fewer trade unionists are getting murdered, we ought to give them free trade, we ought to do a free trade agreement. I hope we will stand back. If we care about justice and human rights and about the values we embody of democracy and fair play, we shouldn't be passing a trade agreement with a country where the labor environment is such that these labor union activists who believe in collective bargaining and free association, collective bargaining--such as the consensus we have in this country around collective bargaining--at least we did until some radicals in Ohio and Wisconsin tried to write and pass legislation that unwinds some of that which has helped create a middle class. But if we believe in collective bargaining, if we believe in free association, if we believe in the right of the people to voluntarily organize and then bargain collectively, we shouldn't be passing a trade agreement with a country that has an environment where so many labor activists have been murdered.

I wish to remind my colleagues again how important this trade adjustment assistance is before we pass these trade agreements.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the senior Senator from Virginia who is about to speak. I will be brief.

I wish to applaud the President today on his comments and the administration's comments, especially the comments of Trade Ambassador Kirk and Gene Sperling, the President's top economic adviser. They have made it clear they will not submit the three free trade agreements--one with Colombia, one with Panama, and one with South Korea--until legislation has come to their desks to take care of the issue of trade adjustment assistance.

This Congress, because of some objections on the other side of the aisle, allowed the trade adjustment assistance language to expire in February. That simply means many workers who lost their jobs because of free trade agreements, or lost their jobs because of trade--not necessarily the countries we had trade agreements with--were going to get some assistance so they could, in fact, be retrained so they could go back to work. Losing their jobs had everything to do with what happens in other ways but has nothing to do with their job performance or even their company's job performance.

The President made the right decision by saying we are not going to move forward with these free trade agreements. I don't much like them, but that is not the point. We are not going to move forward until we have helped these workers find jobs.

Second, we are going to make sure, as Senator Casey and I have said on the floor before, that the health coverage tax credit is also renewed. That matters, to be able to continue the health coverage of many workers.

And, third, that the work of Senator Wyden, Senator Stabenow, and Senator McCaskill will continue, to work on trade enforcement in making sure

these trade rules and trade laws that are in effect will actually be in force so we can protect American jobs.

When we pass these trade agreements, they always cost us jobs. It is about time we take care of workers and communities that suffer from it.

I thank Senator Webb, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, yesterday the White House announced it will not submit three pending free-trade agreements, FTAs, with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama until Congress reaches a deal on reauthorizing the trade adjustment assistance for workers programs, the so-called TAA. I applaud President Obama for putting the workers first before we do these trade agreements.

The trade agreements are very controversial, as they always are. The promises are always that they will create jobs, and they rarely do. They usually result in a decrease in jobs. Yet too often Congress jettisons the safety net to protect those workers who lose their jobs because of these agreements. That is why I applaud President Obama for making this one clear. He will not send these trade agreements to Congress until Congress has sent to his desk--not talked about it, not debated it, not passed one committee or one House, but sent to his desk--trade adjustment assistance expansion.

As my colleagues know, since we let this program expire in February because of Republican objections, Senator Casey and I went to the floor day after day in December and then again in February as Republicans continued to object just to continuing trade adjustment assistance as we had begun in the Recovery Act 2 years earlier.

So what happened? Because of these Republican objections, we shut out service workers and we shut out manufacturing workers who had lost their jobs to countries with which we do not have a free-trade agreement. So when workers lost their jobs because of outsourcing of jobs to China or India, those workers couldn't get trade adjustment assistance until the Recovery Act, so they could get it in 2009 and in 2010. Because of Republican objections to continuation of that, they can't get it now.

Also, people who lost their jobs that were in the service industries experienced this same kind of deadline on their eligibility.

Since Congress made reforms to TAA in 2009, more than 185,000 additional trade-affected workers became eligible for training under the TAA for Workers Program.

In 2010 alone, more than 227,000 workers participated in the TAA program, receiving training for jobs that employers are looking to fill. These are people who want to work. They lost their jobs because of a trade agreement. They can prove they lost their jobs because of a trade agreement. A company shuts down in Elery, OH, and goes to Mexico; a company shuts down in Steubenville, OH, and goes to New Delhi; a company shuts down in Lima, OH, and goes to Shanghai. When you can prove that, as you can in many cases, those workers should be eligible for assistance from the government to get trained to get back to work.

The program also, of course, receives strong support from businesses that know a skilled workforce is critical to their economic competitiveness.

But just 11 days ago--because of these Republican objections and because the TAA language was truncated--but just 11 days ago, the Labor Department denied the first three petitions filed by groups of workers seeking TAA assistance under pre-2009 TAA rules, including three workers in Uniontown, OH. The reason: They are service workers.

In addition, the enhanced health coverage tax credit program also expired in February. HCTC helps trade-affected workers purchase private health insurance coverage to replace the employer-sponsored coverage they lost. It also helps those retirees who lose their benefits when the company for which they worked goes bankrupt.

The HCTC prevents tens of thousands of Americans from falling into the ranks of the uninsured. But right now, if we do not act, we are simply giving these workers the cold shoulder.

So I applaud the administration for saying, yesterday, we will pass no more

free trade agreements without a deal on TAA. But this will require my Republican colleagues to come to the table and agree on a package. We have seen what unfair trade deals such as NAFTA and PNTR with China and CAFTA do to communities in Ohio and around the Nation. These are Americans who lost their jobs, lost their pensions, lost their health care--maybe all three--when the company they worked for moved operations overseas or went to bankruptcy court or faced a reduction in demand for their products due to unfair foreign competition.

These Americans need TAA to get back on solid footing. These Americans need Congress to defend against unfair trade and to strengthen trade enforcement. There are several trade enforcement measures that Senator McCaskill and Senator Wyden and I and others have introduced, and I hope they will garner bipartisan support in this Chamber.

Senator Blunt, Senator McCaskill, and I testified in front of the Trade Subcommittee that Senator Wyden chaired the other day and talked about some of these ideas and how to address them bipartisanly.

TAA has been a core pillar of U.S. trade policy. It has long enjoyed bipartisan support because it helps American workers who lose their jobs and their financial security as a result of globalization.

I thank Senator Casey, Senator Stabenow, Senator Baucus, and Senator Wyden for their leadership on trade adjustment assistance--language in getting this legislation put forward.

Just the fairness of this: Again, put yourself--something we do not do enough here--in the shoes of a worker in Champaign, IL, or Boulder, CO, or Mansfield, OH, a worker who shows up for work for 15 years, who has been a productive worker, helped his company make money, was paid a middle-class, decent wage, and then all of a sudden their plant shuts down because the jobs are outsourced to China. They did not do anything wrong. Are we going to do nothing to help them? Are we going to do nothing to help their communities?

It is pretty clear to me, the overwhelming consensus of the American people say: Give them the opportunity to get training for another job if we cannot save their jobs. Give them some assistance on health insurance so they can reach into their pocket, with some assistance through a significant tax credit, to continue the insurance for their families. It will mean many of them will not lose their homes. Far too many people who lose their jobs then lose their health insurance and then lose their homes.

We have an opportunity actually to do something about this. So the President was exactly right. Do not bring these three free trade agreements--with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea--to the floor until we have first taken care of the workers who lose their jobs--not at the same time because we know what happens when we try to do that. All of a sudden, the assistance for workers gets jettisoned. But it must be done first to help these workers with their health insurance and with their retraining.

It will matter for literally hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of American families.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 8 p.m. for debate only, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from New York who has been a real leader on this issue to bring more tax fairness to the American people and take away the subsidies of these five companies that absolutely do not need those subsidies and to help deal with the budget deficit. We can do that with one simple step that far too many conservative politicians in this city are resisting. I join Senator Schumer in expanding on his comments.

We think our Nation's spending and its budget should reflect our Nation's priorities, should reflect our investments in education, infrastructure, how it will strengthen our economic competitiveness, whether in Charleston, WV, or Ironton, OH, through the innovation of entrepreneurs and small businesses.

Our Tax Code should also reflect our priorities to create jobs at home--to encourage companies to invest in clean energy to end our Nation's dependence on foreign dirty oil.

Last week, unfortunately, we heard just how out of touch some politicians and their benefactors in the oil industry are with the real priorities and real problems facing our Nation--huge Federal deficits, $4-a-gallon gas, Americans struggling to find a job or put food on the table even if they are employed.

I received a letter from Laurie from Lakewood, OH:

This recession has hurt our family budget for the past

three years. My husband and I have had our pay reduced.

We cut our expenses--not going out to eat or to the movies

or the department stores. My husband and I are both working

second jobs to keep our kids in school and food on the table.

We carpool and do everything we can to cut expenses.

I'm at the end, I don't know where else to cut and I don't

have the option of not putting gas in my tank because I have

to get to my jobs.

She said ``jobs,'' plural.

Please, if you can do anything, it would help so many of us

who are struggling.

Laurie's story is similar to that of many other Americans and so many Ohioans from Ashton, OH, to Hamilton, from Lima to Gallipolis, the working mom who drives from home in the suburbs to work downtown; truckdrivers in Toledo where high gas prices jeopardize their ability to operate and transport products across the country;

small business owners in Lima, in Zanesville, Findlay, Mansfield, and Chillicothe who worry that high gas prices cut into already razor-thin margins, where money spent on gas means less spent on finished products, goods, and services.

Their stories stand in sharp contrast to what we heard last week when the CEOs of the five largest oil companies testified before the Senate Finance Committee. They insisted on holding on to those tax loopholes that they said before they do not want and they have acknowledged they will not use to expand production.

A common refrain we hear from conservative Washington politicians is that just as American families are tightening their belts, so, too, should the Federal Government. Just ask Laurie and the thousands of other Ohioans who work hard and play by the rules and are doing everything they can to get by.

What about big oil? They are doing just fine with windfall profits, billions and billions. The five largest oil companies made $32 billion in profits in the first quarter of this year. Based on that, over four quarters over this full calendar year of 2011, we can project the five companies' profits being $128 billion plus--$128 billion. Their profits are good. But when their profits are more than $30 billion in the first quarter alone, it is clear they do not need these taxpayer-funded giveaways.

Americans spent 28 percent more for gas in the first 3 months of 2011 than they did in the same period in 2010. Meanwhile, the big five oil companies--BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell--made 38 percent more profit. The companies then used a major portion of these additional profits to buy back stock to enrich their board of directors, senior managers, and shareholders.

These massive profits are possible by a misguided part of the Tax Code--one that allows them to take advantage of credits that are, in fact, meant to encourage American manufacturing. That is why the Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act is so important. The bill would end more than $2 billion in tax subsidy deductions and royalty relief that big companies receive each year.

Consumers who are already paying for $4-a-gallon gas at the pump should not be forced to write another $2 billion check to companies that do not need it. But that is exactly what our Tax Code allows. To put it another way, it grants corporate welfare to Big Oil. It is unnecessary and undermines the actual manufacturing that can create jobs and strengthen our production of domestic clean energy.

We should promote only those tax credits--only precisely those tax credits--that constitute an effective use of tax dollars. For example, manufacturers from across Ohio and the Nation have benefited from the 48(c) advanced manufacturing tax credits that help us move away from our dependence on foreign oil.

Mr. President, 48(c) leverages public incentives to attract private sector investment. That means government and business working together to create jobs and build a clean energy economy. Seven Ohio companies were awarded $125 million in initial 48(c) funding in the first phase of last year. These companies and their workers--in Bedford, Bucyrus, Circleville, Dayton, Findlay, Perrysburg, and Toledo, OH--will retool their factories to build clean energy products from wind turbine bolts to energy-efficient lamps and home appliances to state-of-the-art solar panel technologies.

I introduced the Security in Energy and Manufacturing Act--the SEAM Act--to extend the 48(c) program. The SEAM Act will promote grants as a means to invest in more companies, especially small- and medium-sized manufacturers that do not have tax liabilities or companies that struggle to find credit in the tight financial market.

We want these manufacturing tax credits--very different from what the oil industry is demanding they keep because their tax incentives accomplish none of this. We are asking that those startup companies, those companies that are not yet so profitable, take these 48(c) tax credits because they simply do not have the tax liability yet. We are asking that those be part of the code so those companies can get some assistance as they begin to grow their businesses and conserve energy.

This would further promote U.S. clean energy manufacturing and ensure our manufacturers produce all the component parts in the clean energy supply chain.

Yet instead of adopting this valuable incentive, Republican opposition in the Senate and Republican opposition in the House forces us to continue to allow Big Oil to exploit the manufacturing deduction to extract oil from the ground. They do not need any more incentives to drill for oil when they are getting close to $100 a barrel. What they are doing is not manufacturing in any sense of the word.

We need a more comprehensive reexamination of the corporate Tax Code. In the meantime, we should be able to agree there is no justification to continuing tax subsidies to companies that have no need for them. This legislation is modest. It is only in the scheme of a huge Federal budget, in the scheme of $125 billion profits for the oil companies. It is only in the scheme of that a first step. After removing these unnecessary tax loopholes, the Senate should work on cracking down on both reckless Wall Street speculators and OPEC members that manipulate prices through collusion and price fixing.

One step is to take away the tax subsidies. Middle-class families in Dayton, Akron, Canton, Youngstown, Huntington, Charleston, in Beckley are reaching into their pockets and giving to the oil companies. We are taking that away. At the same time, the administration needs to crack down on Wall Street speculators that are gaming the system as they manipulate prices with OPEC nations through collusion and price fixing. By taking these necessary steps, we show how our spending and our Tax Code and our budget can reflect not only our priorities but how we can actually meet them.

The time to ask is now. I ask my more conservative colleagues here to join us. It is a pretty easy step to move toward a better fiscal situation, a more coherent budget policy--that we eliminate these tax subsidies that have gone to America's five largest oil companies, some of the most profitable companies, frankly, in the history of the world.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.