In 2008, the United States entered an economic downturn, the most severe since the Great Depression of the early twentieth century. Many, many jobs were lost, most families’ incomes fell and, with these occurrences, purchasing diminished, leading to a reduction in manufacturing and production. With this decrease, even more people lost jobs as factories cut back responding to a decline in orders. This vicious cycle has made the poor economic climate more pernicious and more difficult to overcome.

The reality of this situation is that, not only are many Americans unemployed, but finding a job, even after retraining, has become increasingly difficult. The length of time of unemployment has amplified significantly, with all the negatives that accompany that situation. Families find themselves unable to maintain their lifestyle or pay their bills and sometimes even unable to maintain their homes. During the present economic situation, over 5.5 million manufacturing jobs have been lost with over 54,000 manufacturing facilities shuttered.

As a society, we are focused on addressing this situation and attempting to resolve not only these perilous economic times, but to try to strengthen our economy to ensure this does not happen again. While some specific disagreement exists about how to address this pernicious situation, politicians and economists agree that creating and maintaining jobs is an essential ingredient. Employed Americans can take care of their families, pay their bills and pay their fair share toward necessary government services.

Moreover, in this global economy, we want to try to ensure that America is the most robust partner. We want to be the go-to country and not the exporter of jobs and the importer of goods. Our trade deficit with China has been rising and millions of jobs, not goods, have been exported overseas. Reversing this trend and ensuring American economic strength in the world is vital for our future.

The Buy American Act that I introduced this year in the legislature will help accomplish all these goals. This bill requires that the iron, steel and manufactured goods used in public construction projects, that is, the building, altering or repair of any public building or public works project be manufactured in America. The bill includes an exception if the iron or steel is not available or if the costs of these goods are prohibitive. In other words, all this proposed legislation says is that, when reasonable and available, the Commonwealth should buy American. This simple and patriotic directive can help address the present economic situation and help avoid its reoccurrence.

Infrastructure spending increases jobs. Each 1 billion dollars spent on infrastructure creates 18,000 to 35,000 jobs (dependent on the specific type of infrastructure projects). When this infrastructure spending includes Buy America provisions, which means that the materials for the infrastructure project must be manufactured in the United States, manufacturing jobs increase an additional 33% over the 18 to 35,000 jobs per billion dollars spent. A recent Duke University study confirmed the effectiveness of Buy America programs, stating, “Domestic content requirements have helped develop a robust U.S. component supply chain and give vital opportunities to U.S. firms.”

Moreover, this kind of legislation has an extremely broad base of support nationally. Over 91% of Americans support a mandated Buy America program including 90% of Republicans, 94% of Democrats and 89% of those who self-identify as Tea Partiers. Not only do Americans want American goods used, but, unsurprisingly, as a nation, an extremely high percentage, 97%, have a favorable opinion of American products. Americans know that the iron and steel produced here will be of the best quality, able to withstand years of use and not faultily produced with unseen, but potentially dangerous, flaws.

Buy American legislation has a lengthy bipartisan history. In 1933, almost a century ago, the first federal Buy American Act was passed to ensure that tax dollars were spent in America and to create jobs here. In the 1940’s, during the World War, the Buy American policies were extended to the defense industry. President Reagan signed an expansion of Buy America for federally funded highway and transit projects during his tenure in the 1980s. However, without state laws in place, opportunities are missed to increase American manufacturing and purchase. This diminishes the job producing power of Buy American. The legislation attempts to remedy that for Virginia.

Buy American is just common sense. We need to be building our own economy, not supporting and supplementing that of another country. We need to be creating and maintaining American jobs. As we debate regulation and taxes, government economic policies and the efficacy of Keynesian philosophy, near universal agreement exists on the absolute importance of keeping jobs and manufacturing in the United States. This legislation provides a simple and popular mechanism to do just that. Americans and Virginians will see the benefit in the quality of the infrastructure projects made with American manufactured goods and the jobs created to produce those goods.

Recently, the death of a young girl because of a severe allergic reaction shocked and distressed Central Virginians. The cause of her death was frightening in its simplicity: exposure to an allergic trigger, in this case a peanut.

In the past few years, we have become more aware of the potentially fatal danger of allergic reactions ? and that the number of severe allergic episodes seems to be increasing. In the United States, 6 percent of school-aged children have food allergies and more than 1,500 people die each year in this country from an allergic reaction.

The severe reaction is called anaphylactic shock, and it occurs when the blood vessels constrict causing a heart attack. While public places and institutions make every effort to ensure that individuals are not exposed to allergic triggers, the reality is that this is simply an impossible task.

For some people, just touching the hand of someone who has touched a nut or just being in a room where nuts are present is sufficient to cause a serious reaction. We will never be able to prevent all exposures or keep all areas free from molecules that cause severe reactions in those who are allergic.

Fortunately, however, we have the ability to possibly reduce the number of deaths and lessen the allergic reaction. An injected dose of epinephrine provides relief by relaxing the airwaves, allowing the individual to breathe. Epinephrine is not dangerous, although it may cause mild symptoms such as rapid heart rate and nausea in an individual who is not suffering from an allergic reaction. The only individuals potentially at risk from an injection of epinephrine are those with serious heart conditions.

The epinephrine dose can be given by a device colloquially known as an EpiPen. Using a spring mechanism, the preloaded injector puts just the appropriate amount of medicine into the person. EpiPens come in two sizes, EpiPen Jr. for children and the regular size for adults.

Because of the structure of the device, it is much safer and easier to use than a typical hypodermic needle. In families where a child has a severe allergy, siblings as young as 6 years old have been taught to use the EpiPen to assist the victim.

At the present time, Virginia schools do allow EpiPens, but only if they are brought in by individual students who bring the equipment, a prescription from their doctor and a parental-consent form. That EpiPen can only be used by that particular student, even if another child unexpectedly has an allergic attack.

I have introduced a bill this session that would allow schools to have EpiPens among their supplies and would allow school nurses and other trained personnel to use an EpiPen on any student if that student has an unexpected allergic reaction. This has the potential to save numerous lives.

If a student's family has not been aware of the severity of his or her allergy, the parents may not have gotten the prescription and equipment from their doctor. Other students, unfortunately, may not be under the regular care of a doctor, and may not even realize their risk.

Some families simply cannot afford the visit to the doctor or the purchase of the EpiPen. Also, some children may have an unanticipated allergic reaction. An exposure to a new food could trigger a reaction or a reaction might be unusually severe.

These children are presently all at risk. An EpiPen, easily available and accessible for all students in the school nurse's office, could make all the difference.

Fears of lawsuits for "unauthorized" use of an EpiPen have proven to be unfounded. Instead, school officials have been sued for not using an EpiPen to save a life.

This is not a partisan issue, this is not a rural or urban issue, this issue doesn't grow government or invade citizens' personal lives. This bill is that rare opportunity where we, as legislators, can truly make a difference for people, perhaps even save a life.

All too often, as we sit in the Capitol, we make grandiose arguments and we wax eloquent about differing philosophies. We try to make every piece of legislation part of a partisan agenda, part of proving a point and, sometimes, part of a plan for re-election.

This legislation accomplishes none of those goals. It does not put any political party on the defensive or make any political party look good. It is not there to placate a loud, clamoring outcry from citizens or to help advance a personal or political agenda. This bill is almost frightening in its simplicity and common sense.

We have a unique occasion to come together, to not grandstand or pontificate, but to vote for a bill that very well could, in the near future, save a child's life.

Originally published in the Times Dispatch,, Sunday, January 22^nd, 2012

Each General Assembly Session brings with it its own rewards and challenges. This year is no different. I feel very honored and privileged because my Democratic colleagues in the Senate have elected me the Caucus chair. With this title comes some particular responsibility. I need to work with and interact with all Caucus members and to help address any obstacles they may encounter. Moreover, this Session brings great challenges because, with an acting Republican majority, many of the issues that I believe are so important are irrelevant or even counter to the Republican agenda. But that does not make the needs of citizens any less critical just because some legislators don’t prioritize those concerns.

Virginia children still deserve a first class top-notch public school education whether they live in Fairfax in Northern Virginia, in Grundy in Southwest Virginia or here in Richmond in the capital region. They deserve the opportunity to pursue higher education at a reasonable cost or to be able to get vocational training. We must ensure that all our graduates are prepared as they can be for the difficult job market. For this to happen, they need committed and devoted teachers, access to cutting edge technology and facilities that enhance learning.

Virginians deserve shelter and adequate healthy food for themselves and their families. They should feel safe in their homes and not have to worry about violence and crime. Living in a crime ridden neighborhood makes it impossible for residents to enjoy or fully focus on any other part of life. Their energy, mental and physical, is concentrated on staying safe.

Senator McEachin penned this op/ed in the January 17 edition of The Washington Post.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s enduring vision for a better tomorrow helped guide our nation through one of its darkest hours. His leadership delivered some of the most difficult, but necessary changes in our country;s history. His words continue to empower and inspire us to strive for a more equal and just society.

Across the Commonwealth on Monday, Virginians celebrated Dr. King's life and legacy. The significance of a day, recognized by the state, honoring Dr. King may be lost on young and new Virginians.

But others will remember the bitter struggle to secure this day that was, at one point in our Commonwealth's history, anything but a given.

I have no doubt that my Republican colleagues come to Richmond to, from their perspective, do what is best for the Commonwealth just as I am confident that my Democratic colleagues are serving the needs of Virginians. In my experience, the best way to accomplish this mutual goal is to work together, to find commonalities and to resolve differences through honest dialogue and compromise. Last year's General Assembly budget is an excellent example of both sides working together to create a blueprint that serves Virginians.

With this in mind, it is particularly disappointing that the Senate Republicans will not consider any form of parity or power sharing. Election night results gave us an evenly divided Senate, with 20 Republicans and 20 Democrats elected. Fewer than 300 votes separated Bryce Reeves, the Republican victor, from the incumbent Democrat he defeated. In other words, the difference between a Democratic majority and parity was less than 300 votes over the hundreds of thousands cast. But, that's how elections work and we Democrats are not in the majority and do not expect to control the Senate. Though the margin was tiny, we lost the majority and we accept that. The reality, however, is that we are not in the minority and neither are the Republicans. Therefore, neither party should serve as the majority or as the minority. The power structure in the Senate should resemble those evenly divided results. Power sharing is the only reasonable, equitable solution.

Redistricting, a term that recently seems to have, at a minimum, many controversial connotations, is actually a constitutional protection. Delineated in the federal Constitution, reapportionment, now more commonly known as redistricting, is the process by which we ensure the extremely critical and essential concept of “one man, one vote,” as defined by the courts within very limited variance. Because of irregular population trends over the Commonwealth (and for that matter, the country) over time legislators may find themselves representing very different numbers of people.

The “ideal” number of voters in a Senate district is determined by dividing the population by 40, the number of Senate districts. The method is the same for the House of Delegates, except divided by 100, the number of House districts. In this past year’s census, the district of State Senator Mark Herring, in Northern Virginia has grown so much that he is representing twice as many people as he should, based on the ideal number. At the same time, some of the legislators in Tidewater where the population has not grown commensurately are representing significantly fewer voters than the ideal. This means, in effect, that in those types of districts, where the population is over or under the ideal, voters no longer have “one man, one vote.” When Senator Herring votes, his vote only counts for 1/40th of the total, but he is representing double that in population. The unfairness of this quickly becomes apparent and redistricting is the constitutional remedy for this inequality. In and of itself, redistricting is the essence of democracy and fairness.

The controversy is not in redistricting, but in how it is applied.

This op/ed originally appeared in the Richmond Times Dispatch

The budget, proposed by the governor, and revised, amended and approved by the General Assembly, frequently seems like an arcane process with incomprehensible large numbers, accompanied by the usual partisan squabbling. In other words, all too often, it seems impossible to know what is happening, let alone what the real impacts of the budgetary decisions are. This General Assembly Session, where the House of Delegates and the State Senate had very different proposals, was only the most recent example of this phenomenon. As each side fought for their priorities, I believe that most Virginians had no idea what was actually at stake and what the impact of the various decisions would be.

This op/ed originally appeared in the Richmond Times Dispatch

While polio may have been the children’s epidemic of the last century, autism appears to be the scourge of the early part of the twenty-first century. In the United States and here in Virginia, almost one in every 70 boys and one in every 110 girls is afflicted by the disorder. Like other epidemics, autism doesn’t care about race or socioeconomic status, all children are vulnerable. Moreover, while no one yet knows why, autism is growing at the shocking rate of 10 to 17 per cent per year. The national Autism Society estimates that the cost of caring for a child with autism over a lifetime ranges from $3.5 million to $5 million and that our country faces close to $90 billion in annual costs for autism.

The value to treating this disorder is great, not just for those afflicted or their families and friends, but for all Virginians. Without intervention, many of these children will not grow up to be productive, constructive citizens, able to raise families, achieve gainful employment and give back to society. Instead, they will be a burden on all of us. They will need government services for their very survival, accommodations to care for them because they will not have the ability to care for themselves.

This op/ed originally appeared in the Richmond Free Press

As the General Assembly Session draws to a close in just a few days, I wanted to review the outcome of some of the legislation and issues I have discussed in this column over the last few weeks. My bills to assist with the foreclosure crisis and those of most of my colleagues were defeated. The forces aligned against change were many and powerful. Foreclosure is an example of how those who already suffer frequently are the most powerless in changing the outcome. However, my colleagues and I will continue to fight for change. Even in defeat, we enlightened some of our peers to the depth of the problem and were even able to steer some individuals to organizations and programs that would assist their particular problem.

Minority money management for the Virginia Retirement Service (VRS) continues to progress. I have been very pleased with the responsiveness of my peers in the State Senate who voted to extend my study to ensure that this situation is addressed and continues to ameliorate. The board and staff of VRS has also been very responsive and are actively working to address the situation. I anticipate continued success in that area.