Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the resolution of the Senate of January 24, 1901, the traditional reading of Washington's Farewell Address take place on Monday, February 27, 2012, at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate adjourn until 9:30 on Wednesday, February 15, 2012; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business until noon, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority controlling the second 30 minutes; that following morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Jordan nomination, with 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form prior to a vote on confirmation of the Jordan nomination; that upon confirmation of the nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session and consideration of S. 1813, the surface transportation bill.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, earlier today I toured Alcoa's Cleveland Works plant. The plant houses an engineering and manufacturing marvel of a 50,000-ton Mesta forging press. It stands 87 feet high; 36 feet below the surface, 51 feet above the surface. The press has enough steel to lay 42 miles of railroad track. That is roughly here to Baltimore or Akron to Cleveland. It is massive, and one of only five heavy closed-die forging presses in the United States. It is officially considered by the Mechanical Engineering Association a national historic engineering landmark. Its original purpose was to build components for large airplanes during World War II. During the war, we discovered that German aircraft were being built with structural elements that could only be made by large forging processes that we thought had not yet been invented. So only as it could do, our government, through the Air Force, initiated the Heavy Press Program to compete with the Germans and to show that advanced manufacturing matters to our country. After the war, we brought the Mesta supergiant forging press to America and to Cleveland, where it remains critical to the commercial and defense aerospace industries. It formed the basis of a public- private partnership, it stamps the ``Made in America'' label on some of the world's most advanced technologies and products. Today Alcoa is investing $100 million to complete and restart its redesign of the massive press. Alcoa invested in America and it is an investment in Ohio manufacturing. It shows the company's ability to leverage public resources to meet industrial-based needs as well as commercial demands of the market. It is for our national security, and it is for our domestic security to build a middle class. It is an example of how partnerships can still pay dividends six decades later and will do so with continued investment for decades to come. At the time it was about our national pride and need in times of war. Today it is about creating and retaining jobs. It is about showing that manufacturing is about building and it is about innovation. Manufacturing is about high-tech production, it is sophisticated engineering, it is advanced technologies, and it remains a ticket to the middle-class. We are finally seeing recognition in Washington that manufacturing is critical to our economic recovery. For 12 years--from 1997 through the 8 Bush years into 2009--we had seen a decline every single year in Ohio manufacturing and in American manufacturing, but for the last 21 months we have seen an increase in manufacturing jobs in America and an increase in manufacturing jobs in Ohio. It started, in part, with the auto rescue where if some conservative politicians in Washington had had their way, they would have allowed the auto industry simply to declare bankruptcy with no ability to finance or restructure the auto industry. Instead, the President, in working with the Senate and working with the House, rescued that industry by investing in that industry. Today in my State we are seeing thousands of auto jobs in the auto companies, in Chrysler and in GM, jobs that wouldn't have been there if we had not done auto rescue, and we are seeing all kinds of auto supply jobs. For instance, at the Chrysler Jeep plant in Toledo, where 3 years ago only 50 percent of components came from domestic sources, today more than 70 percent come from domestic sources. Today plants in Toledo, in Lordstown, and in Defiance are hiring workers. The Chevy Cruze--one of the hottest selling cars in America-- is as close to an all-Ohio car as you can get. The engine is made in Defiance, the transmission is made in Toledo, the bumpers are made in Northwood, the stamping is done in Parma, the steel comes out of Cleveland, the aluminum comes out of Cleveland, part of the sound system comes out of Springboro, and the assembly is in Lordstown-- thousands and thousands of autoworker jobs, tens of thousands of jobs of auto suppliers supplying the Cruze, supplying Honda, supplying the Jeep plant in Toledo, supplying the Ford plant in Avon Lake. In the last year alone, Honda and Chrysler and Ford and GM announced multimillion-dollar investments in Ohio alone and, in many cases, around the country. Honda announced it would build and develop its most state-of-the-art sports car ever right in Ohio. We see the same jobs creating investments from Chrysler, its Toledo assembly complex, from Ford at the Avon Lake plant, from GM at its Defiance powertrain plant. As it did when the Nation needed the forging press for aerospace manufacturing, our government did only as it could do; it stepped up to invest in America and the American auto industry. So those who complain about the auto rescue need to read a little history to understand that so often American manufacturing partnered with U.S. taxpayers to make sure these industries were strong and solid and created good-paying jobs to build the middle-class. It is paying off dividends today. It will continue to do so in the future. I have a unanimous consent request after I speak, that the Senator from Oregon is recognized.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. One more point I wish to make. We must remain vigilant in enforcement of our trade laws. Our progress in autos is at risk of being undercut if we allow China to continue to cheat on trade rules, flaunt its predatory auto trade practices in our faces. Only 10 years ago, our trade deficit in auto parts with China was only about $1 billion. That has grown 800 percent to about $9 billion to $10 billion. That means more than 1.6 million American jobs are at risk. Our trade deficit with China is continuing to cause difficulty for middle-class Americans. China has begun placing tariffs on American-made automobiles. These massive illegal subsidies are worsened by indirect predatory subsidies such as currency manipulation. That is why I am encouraged by the President's announcement of a new trade enforcement panel. It is borne of the realization that the stakes are too high for our workers and our economy if we don't fight back. We need an all-hands-on-deck approach among the USTR, the State Department, and the Commerce Department to be involved, to be more aggressive, especially by initiating more trade cases. I know from representing Ohio in the Senate since 2007 what trade enforcement laws do. Trade enforcement by the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission against China's cheating created jobs in Lorain, OH, in the steel industry; created jobs in Findlay, OH, in the tire industry; created jobs in paper and other industries around the State and resulted in a new steel mill, V&M Star Steel, in Youngstown, OH, where about 1,000 building trades people are building that plant and 500 or 600 steelworkers will be working in that plant that manufactures Oil Country Tubular steel--jobs that would have been in China if the President of the United States and the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission did not enforce trade laws. That is why that matters. That is why the new trade enforcement panel that the President is setting up as part of his budget is so very important for the future of our national security and for the future of the middle class and our great country. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Sure.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from California. She is on the floor today with Senator Inhofe--unlikely peas in a pod, one pretty liberal, one pretty conservative, very different views--to talk about job creation, infrastructure, building highways and bridges and public transit, and job creation. As so often is the case, people on the other side want to change the subject. In my State, the elections 1\1/2\, 2 years ago were all about lost jobs, about lost manufacturing jobs that, frankly, accelerated during the Bush years, and we finally turned that manufacturing job loss around. We have seen 20 straight months of job increases in manufacturing. But the legislature in Columbus, my State capital, and the Governor, what are they doing? They are not fighting for job creation. They are going after workers' rights and women's rights--the heartbeat bill, pretty extreme--instead of focusing on job creation. That is what I came to discuss on the Senate floor today too--not specifically on this bill but another infrastructure bill, which I will get to in a moment. The comment I heard from Senator Barrasso, only from the end of his discussion, was that he wants to repeal the health care law. How do they tell a 23-year-old who now is on her mother's insurance, who is without a job and doesn't have insurance, that she is going to lose her insurance she has through her mother's insurance? How are they going to explain it to the family who has a child with a preexisting condition who now can get insurance when the insurance company denied it before? How are they going to explain it to the Medicare retiree, the 72-year- old woman on Medicare who now has no copay, no deductible, free screenings for osteoporosis, or the man who gets prostate screenings-- how are they going to explain that? They want to repeal that. How are they going to explain the fact that they want to repeal stopping one of the most insidious insurance company practices, which is that if people get too sick and they are too expensive, insurance companies just cut them off? They want to repeal that prohibition. I guess it is because they want to do the insurance companies' bidding over and over. That is a big part of their game. It just breaks my heart when I see the progress we have made for the millions of Americans who now will have health insurance. I know the Senator and my colleagues, everybody in this body has good health insurance. People in this body are generally pretty affluent. They have good government insurance. But they don't want millions of men and women in our country--people who have lost jobs, people who are working without insurance--they don't want them to have insurance, all for some political gain of repealing ObamaCare. It is too bad. Madam President, now I wish to focus on job creation. I wish to make some remarks on legislation I introduced today that is not directly Senator Boxer's and Senator Inhofe's highway bill, but it is about water and sewer systems and infrastructure.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, earlier today I was on a call with Tony Parrott, executive director of the Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati. We talked about how communities in Ohio are struggling to afford the necessary upgrades to improve sewer systems. In parts of the State with something called combined sewer systems, every time there are heavy rains waste and storm water overflows, the sewers overflow, and the water is dumped into our rivers and creeks and lakes. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 800 billion gallons of untreated wastewater and storm water from these combined sewage overflows, these combined sewer systems, are released into our rivers, lakes, and streams each year. It poses a threat to public health and the environment, and it undermines the competitiveness of our businesses. So not only do building these water and sewer systems and upgrades create jobs, but we also know if we don't, local businesses aren't going to expand. If they are not certain they are going to have good, clean water available at a decent and reasonable cost, they are not going to expand their businesses, especially if it is manufacturing. The cost of addressing these combined sewage overflow systems in Ohio is some $6 billion according to the EPA, $1 billion in northeast Ohio, and $2 billion in the Cincinnati area. So that is why today, because there are 81 Ohio communities requiring water infrastructure improvements, I am reintroducing the Clean Water Affordability Act. In previous Congresses I introduced this legislation with our Republican colleague from Ohio, Senator Voinovich. This bill will protect ratepayers, lead to cleaner water, and promote economic development. It would invest $1.8 billion to be distributed over the next 5 years through a grant program for financially distressed communities administered by EPA Administrator Jackson. I have spoken to her conveying the concern of Ohio's CSO communities. The program provides a 75/25 cost share, similar to what we have done on highway issues in the past: 75 percent Federal Government cost, 25 percent local government cost. It is estimated that every $1 billion invested in infrastructure, similar to the highway bill that Senators Inhofe and Boxer are working on, will create--that for every $1 billion invested, upwards of 20,000 jobs would be created. It will promote green infrastructure. Cities such as Bucyrus or Steubenville should be encouraged to use green infrastructure if it costs less than traditional construction and produces the same environmental benefits. I will continue to work with mayors such as Dave Berger of Lima and Bob Armstrong of Defiance, county commissioners, and others such as Tony Parrot, who explained to me how years of reduced infrastructure investments have eroded their water and sewer systems. When we were kids in the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s and into the 1980s, the U.S. infrastructure was the envy of the world. Whether it was the interstate system, whether it was the Federal, State, local partnerships on water and sewer systems, whether it was the building of community colleges and the beginnings of technology and wiring for our telecommunications systems in the 1950s and 1960s, we were the envy of the world. Today, because so many in this government think we need to cut spending at all costs on everything, we simply have not kept up with the infrastructure. That is why countries such as China that are investing so much money in infrastructure--we run the risk of them passing us by in manufacturing and all the things we care about that build a solid middle class. This legislation is an economic development imperative. This legislation is an imperative for citizens of our country--having clean drinking water, safe drinking water, predictable access to water at a reasonable cost. It is important for our families. It is important for our communities. It is important for business development. It is important for a strong middle-class manufacturing country, which we still are. I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation I am introducing today.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, products that are labeled ``Made in China'' can be found in our cars, in our closets, and in our cupboards. So too are the ingredients in the foods we eat often, the medicine we take, the candy our children enjoy, and the toys they play with. But how many times have we heard in the last few years of illness and death from contaminated foods or drugs or toys that were made in China? In Toledo, OH, patients died after taking contaminated Heparin to treat their heart conditions. Drug manufacturers have acknowledged that they turn to countries such as China to buy ingredients to put into pharmaceuticals. U.S. companies often move production to China, buy ingredients there, put these drugs together, and sell them back into the United States with ingredients that may not pass some of the safety inspections they should. One company acknowledged that 17 percent of its active ingredients in manufacturing are outsourced, often to countries with weaker drug safety standards. When high lead levels were discovered in toys several years ago, I urged stronger oversight to help keep our children safe. Four years ago, I asked Dr. Jeffrey Weidenhamer of Ashland University in north central Ohio to test lead levels. He had already begun testing with the students, and we asked him to do it again, to test the lead level in Halloween toys, including the cups and the buckets that Ohio children would be eating out of and decorations families would be using that children often put into their mouths during the holidays. He tested products in the fall of 2007 for Halloween and the spring of 2008 for Easter toys. He identified 12 of 97 products contaminated with high quantities--much higher than what is considered safe by our government--high lead contents in this lead- based paint on our toys; among them, candy buckets, drinking cups, fake teeth, and other Halloween props. At Easter, it was eggs and baskets and other things. It included products bought at leading national retailers. At the same time, it was clear that our trading system, patterned in many ways and with businesses following this business plan of shutting down production in places such as Rhode Island, which the Presiding Officer represents, and Ohio, shutting down production in our country and moving it to China, manufacturing products there, and selling products back here, that trade system has failed basic consumer and public safety standards. There is nothing free about trade that puts children in the hospital for playing with a toy or eating candy or brushing their teeth. That is why Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. The act sent a simple message to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is charged with protecting consumers: Protect American children, protect families, protect companies from unsafe and possibly fatal products. That job has gotten a lot harder to protect the American public on food products, on toys, on pharmaceuticals, and on pet food, which I will discuss, because the business plan for so many companies has been to shut down production in Canton, OH, and move it to Guangzhou, China, shut down production in Toledo or Dayton, OH, and move it to Wuhan or Shiyan, China, in order to save money, in order to cut worker safety costs, in order to evade environmental and consumer regulations sometimes. The new law that we passed meant that hundreds of thousands of toys and food and other imports from China and elsewhere can be recalled when they are unsafe. The key is inspection of these products, and the key is making the companies liable that outsource the jobs to China in order to save money. We don't want more court cases and more litigation, but if these companies are going to move production to China, they need to take responsibility for the toys if the toys have been painted with lead-based paint. They need to take responsibility for the pharmaceutical ingredients--sometimes dangerous ingredients that somebody has somehow put in these pharmaceuticals when production comes from China. They need to be careful about food safety. They need to be careful about treats for pets that have been contaminated. That act has been a success. Last year, Dr. Weidenhamer conducted another test and found no lead-based paint contamination in Halloween items. But there is a gap in our trade system that threatens public health and public safety. We passed a law to close that gap. Public safety has benefited, and companies are still able to make and sell their products in this free market. One year ago, Congress passed and the President signed into law the bipartisan Food Safety Modernization Act. The law provides the FDA with the tools needed to better protect our food supply, to recall tainted or adulterated food, and to respond more effectively to foodborne illness outbreaks. It empowered the FDA with new authority to establish a traceability system; that is, when a product comes to your table, whether it is food in this case, a pharmaceutical, or whether it is a toy, the company that sells that product needs to be able to trace back all the ingredients, all the components, where they came from, how they were produced, and under what conditions they were produced. It is that type of public safety infrastructure that is so important. Yet, as we have seen with food and toys and drugs imported from China, now we are seeing it with pet food. Yesterday I met with Kevin Thaxton of Cuyahoga County--the Cleveland area--whose wife Candance wrote to me after one of their dogs, a 9-year-old pug, died from kidney failure. They thought it was the pug simply getting older. I had a pug once, and they don't usually live much beyond 10 years. Then, as they got another dog that got sick immediately, they figured out it was likely from eating Chinese-made chicken jerky treats. Until the second dog, they didn't make the connection between the pet food and the pet illness, when the second dog, the puppy, had a life-threatening illness. Another Ohioan, Terry Safranek, joined us at our meeting 2 days ago. Terry lost her 9-year-old fox terrier earlier this year. She did not realize that tainted chicken jerky treats could be responsible for her dog's death until she saw the Thaxton's story on the evening news. These two families, the Thaxtons and the Safraneks, and the 62 percent of U.S. households who own a pet shouldn't have to worry about the safety of the food they give their pets. It is an example again of a trade issue transforming into a safety issue. To explain this, so many companies in the United States as part of their business plan decide--in order to save money, in order to evade consumer protection laws, food safety laws, worker safety laws, and environmental laws, or for whatever reason--to move their production to China, with significantly cheaper labor. They shut down in Columbus or Cincinnati, OH, and they move to China to manufacture these products they sell back into the United States. Probably unprecedented in economic or world history is where companies shut down one place, move overseas, produce the same item, and then sell them back into the home market. We know that with that whole trade regimen, that whole construct of that business plan of shutting down production and moving overseas and selling back in, there are significant health and safety problems. Again, there are problems with lead-based paint and there are problems with the safety of other consumer items. There are problems with food safety, there are problems with pharmaceutical ingredients contamination, and now there are problems with pet foods. The Food and Drug Administration has logged more than 350 reports of pet illnesses thought to be connected to chicken jerky treats made in China. Although the FDA has already issued a warning about illness, they have not yet for sure identified a contaminant. The treats remain on market shelves in stores across the country. I would never on this Senate floor suggest people buy something or boycott something else. I would suggest, though, that people look at the product when they buy something for their pet and that they look at where it is made and make the judgment based on that. I am calling on the FDA to accelerate its investigation of imported pet food, especially food imported from China, where the possibility of food contamination is higher. That is the FDA's job. Earlier this week, I sent a letter to Dr. Hamburg, the FDA Commissioner, urging her agency to act swiftly to make sure that products found to be harmful are pulled from retail outlets. I have asked the FDA to improve its notification system so pet owners know about items under investigation for pet food safety breaches. The FDA should promptly pursue efforts to find the contaminant in these pet treats and ensure they are pulled from store shelves to prevent any unnecessary pet deaths. Contaminated toys, hard-to-trace medical ingredients, and now pet food have all forced Americans to turn to the government to ensure the safety of the products we import. It is a problem with trade law that we have set this up to happen far too often. It is an example of when government works when we stepped in on lead- based paint, kept those products off the market, and made sure that products coming in now are safer because we passed the consumer protection revision. It shows that government stepping in, in the right way, can make a difference in saving the lives of children, protecting people's pets, protecting pharmaceuticals--making sure that pharmaceutical safety is guaranteed as much as possible. We have been down this road before. There is nothing free about trade that undermines basic health rules. There is nothing free about trade that weakens safety rules, the very rules that help keep food safe to eat and water and air safe to drink and to breathe. The FDA should take action now to protect American pet owners from tainted products that can harm the health of their pets. It has been a longtime victory for the American people that the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we take, the toys we buy for our children, the treats we buy for our pets--we have done a good job in this country in the last several decades of the government partnering with businesses to make sure these products are generally safe for our families--for ourselves, for our children, and for our pets. Now, these holes in our trade laws--these trade laws that encourage companies to go overseas and produce products and sell them back here--clearly have undermined so much of what we have accomplished bipartisanly for so many years for the health and safety of the American public. Thus the role of government can be important to show that we do know how to do this to protect our families. I urge the FDA to step in here on this issue and help American families. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, at the conclusion of my remarks, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley, be recognized.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank Senator Inhofe for the sensible nature of his words in terms of the difference between a Presidential and a congressional earmark. I think the Senator brought good sense to this, and I appreciate his words. Amendment No. 1481 Madam President, I rise in support of amendment No. 1481, cosponsored by Senator Merkley, our amendment to the STOCK Act. I thank Senator Gillibrand for her good work on managing this legislation. USA Today had an editorial from Tuesday that said: If lawmakers were really concerned with ethics, they'd put their equity holdings in blind trusts, so they wouldn't have the obvious conflict of interest that comes from setting the rules for the companies they own. Banking committee members wouldn't invest in financial institutions, Armed Services Committee members wouldn't invest in defense contracts, and energy committee members wouldn't invest in oil companies. How simple is that? How straightforward is that? How right is that? These stories simply don't reflect well on the world's greatest deliberative body. Most of us think these investments don't affect our decisions here, and they probably don't, but isn't it time we held ourselves to a higher standard? Senator Merkley and I are proposing the Putting the People's Interests First Act as an amendment to the STOCK Act. It would require Senators and their senior staff who are subject to financial disclosure--no more than two or three or four of our staff people in each office; the most well paid, those in the highest ranking decision- making position--to sell individual stocks that create conflicts or to put their investments in blind trusts or to invest in only widely held mutual funds. No one is required to avoid equities. We could still invest in broad- based mutual funds or exchange-traded funds. You can keep your ownership interest in your family farm or small business. I will repeat that: In no way does this affect your ownership in your family farm or small business. If you are setting up a blind trust, you can instruct the trustee to hold onto your stock in your family company. This rule would be similar to steps that have already been taken to address financial conflicts of interest or at least the appearance of financial conflicts. Senate Ethics rule 37.7 requires committee staff making more than $25,000 per year--way more strict than our amendment in that way--``to divest himself [or herself] of any substantial holdings which may be directly affected by the actions of the committee for which he works.'' The Armed Services Committee requires staff and spouses and dependents to divest themselves of stock in companies doing business with the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. The committee does permit the use of blind trusts. When asked about a requirement to divest, former Defense Secretary William Perry said: That was very painful, but I do not disagree with the importance of doing this. The potential of corruption is very high. It keeps our government clean. In the executive branch, Federal rules and Federal criminal law generally prohibit employees, their spouses, and their children from owning stock in companies they regulate. All Senator Merkley and I are saying is that Members of the Senate should hold themselves to the same standard we already require of much of our committee staff and executive branch employees. Our staff's requirements are more severe than ours, and we are the ones whose names are on the ballot, we are the ones who are sworn in to do the bidding of the American people. We are the 100 people in this so-called exclusive club and yet we are going to have different rules for us than we do for a $30,000-a-year staff person? That hardly seems right. Some argue that selling all of our stock will make us lose touch with the rest of society. That kind of thinking falls on deaf ears for most Americans. The ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee doesn't invest in stocks. Instead he invests in State and local bonds with a small amount directed into mutual funds. When asked, Congressman Frank of Massachusetts said: ``I get a steady 4.5 percent, and I help my state in the process. I'm a patriot, and I'm making money too.'' Why should Members of the Senate who own stock in oil companies vote on issues that affect the oil industry? Why should Members of the Senate who might own stock in a pharmaceutical company vote on issues that affect health care, on a generic drug bill or on a biologics bill or on Medicare or Medicaid? Appearances matter. Right now the American people don't trust that we are acting in the Nation's best interest far too many times. Investing in broadly held funds or a blind trust will keep us in touch with society. It is not a retreat from the U.S. economy. Instead it will keep us from picking winners and losers. It will show the public that our focus is on policies that will help grow the economy. Again, I am not accusing any of my colleagues, if they own an oil stock, of voting for more tax breaks for the oil industry. I am not saying they do that; I am saying there is the appearance that some of them might do it. We need to remember that public service is a privilege. Folks around Washington are already paid well in these jobs. There is no reason they need to be buying and selling stocks in small or multimillion-dollar portfolios. When asked about the fact that Senate Armed Services Committee conflict-of-interest rules apply only to staff and Department of Defense appointees--but not to Senators--again, when asked about the fact that the Senate Armed Services Committee conflict-of-interest rules apply to staff people--and, again, not necessarily highly paid staff--and Department of Defense appointees, President Bush's Deputy Secretary of Defense, Gordon England, said: ``I think Congress should abide by the same rules we impose on other people.'' No kidding. Really. In a State of the Union Message, the President said: ``Let's limit any elected official from owning stocks in industries they impact.'' As we cast votes, we all--the 100 Members of the Senate--have an impact on all kinds of industries every day, on all our economies. I agree with Under Secretary England. I agree with President Obama. I agree with Senator Merkley as we offer this amendment. It is simple and direct. The public should expect nothing less from us. Thank you.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, the amendment Senator Merkley and I have proposed would require all Senators and their senior staff to sell individual stocks that create conflicts or to place their investments in blind trusts. You can still invest in broad-based mutual funds. You can keep your ownership interest in your family farm or small business. If you are setting up a blind trust, you can instruct the trustee to hold on to your stock in your family company. Current Senate ethics rules require committee staff making more than $25,000 a year to ``divest [themselves] of any substantial holdings which may be directly affected by the actions of the committee for which [they work].'' All Senator Merkley and I are saying is, Members of the Senate should hold ourselves to the same standard we already require of our committee staff and executive branch employees. As Senator Merkley said, baseball players cannot bet on their games. We should not be able to hold stock in individual companies and then vote on issues that affect our holdings. I ask for a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, across the Nation, Americans wonder if Washington is working for them. Congress's approval rate, as we know so well, is an abysmal 13 percent, 12 percent--different surveys--but not very good. One factor contributing to this distrust is the sense that elites in Washington are using their positions to get ahead financially. Members of Congress have the privilege and the honor of being elected to serve the public. Unfortunately, some elected officials have used the information they have acquired through service to the public--and I might put service to the public in quotation marks--to enrich their stock holdings. That is wrong. Public servants should not receive financial benefits for the votes they cast or the issues they work on. That is why I appreciate the work Senator Gillibrand, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Collins are doing in this legislation. How many articles do we have to read about the appearance of impropriety on the investment decisions of lawmakers and their staff? In a Washington Post article from June of 2010, Taxpayers for Common Sense said: By being on a committee with a particular jurisdiction, they're in a better position of influencing the performance of their investments, or at least appearing to have that ability. I am not saying my colleagues do that. I think perhaps some do. I do not know that, but I do know that the appearance to the public is that Members of the Senate are in a position to enrich themselves on a variety of issues and investments. In a Washington Post article on December 20, the Project on Government Oversight--this was about a year, 13, 14 months ago, this article--said: It's a problem. They will come back and say that it's ludicrous that I would think of my stocks, that they only think about the nation's interests and of their constituents. The problem is, we can't know. That is exactly right. We can't know. This is a USA editorial from yesterday: If lawmakers were really concerned with ethics, they'd put their equity holdings in blind trusts, so they wouldn't have the obvious conflict of interest that comes from setting the rules for the companies they own. Banking committee members wouldn't invest in financial institutions, armed services committee members wouldn't invest in defense contractors, and energy committee members wouldn't investment in oil companies. These stories simply do not reflect well on the world's greatest deliberative body. Most of us think these investments don't affect our decisions. They probably do not. But isn't it time we hold ourselves to a higher standard? That is what the STOCK Act is all about. The Senate is considering the STOCK Act, which clarifies the insider trading laws, that they apply the same way to Members of Congress as they do to people in the rest of the country. But the STOCK Act only deals with insider trading, which is very important, but that is only a small part of the problem. Senator Merkley and I are proposing the Putting the People's Interests First Act amendment to the STOCK Act. It would require all Senators and senior staff, probably legislative director, their most senior legislative people--person--and their Chief of Staff, all Senators and their Chiefs of Staff, all subject to financial disclosure, to sell individual stocks, divest themselves of individual stocks that create conflicts or place all of those individual stock investments in blind trusts. No one is required to avoid equities. We can still invest in broad- based mutual funds or exchange-traded funds. We have already had this in a limited way. Senate ethics rule 37.7 requires committee staff making more than $125,000 a year to ``divest himself or herself of any substantial holdings which may be directly affected by the actions of the committee for which {that person} works'' unless the Ethics Committee approves an alternate arrangement. The Armed Services Committee requires all staff, spouses, and dependents to divest themselves of stock in companies doing business with the Department of Defense and Department of Energy. The Committee does permit the use of blind trusts. In the executive branch, Federal regulations and Federal criminal law generally prohibit employees, their spouses, and their children from owning stock in companies they regulate. All Senator Merkley and I are saying is Members of the Senate should hold themselves to the same standard we require of committee staff and executive branch employees. We tell committee staff and executive branch employees they can't do this. Why should we be allowed to do this? If we think this is a sacrifice--which it is not, ultimately-- remember that while the median net worth of all Americans dropped 8 percent from 2004 to 2010, the median net worth of Members of Congress jumped 15 percent over that same period. It is not a judgment of my colleagues, simply what we should do, what the public would want us to do. Some argue selling our stock will make us lose touch with the rest of society. That thinking falls on deaf ears for most Americans. Why should they vote on issues that affect the oil industry when they own oil stocks? Why should Members of the Senate vote on issues that affect health care when they own stock in pharmaceutical companies--Big PhRMA stocks? Appearance matters. Right now the American people do not trust that we are acting in the Nation's best interests far too often. I will close with this and then turn to Senator Merkley. Public service is a privilege. Folks around Washington are paid pretty well for what we do--are paid very well for what we do. We take these jobs seriously. We should take them seriously. We should look at them as the privilege they are to serve in the greatest deliberative body in the world and get to serve my State, 11 million people; the State of Senator Gillibrand, 19 million people, something like that; and the State of Senator Merkley--millions of people we serve. It is a privilege to do it. There is no reason our colleagues need to be buying and selling stocks in multimillion dollar portfolios. When asked about the fact that the Senate Armed Services Committee conflict of interest rules apply only to staff and to DOD appointees, President Bush's Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England said, ``I think Congress should live by the rules they impose on other people.'' In the State of the Union Address the President said, ``Let's limit any elected official from owning stocks in industries they impact.'' Everything we do in this body, almost everything we do--committee hearings, floor sessions, calls to agencies--affects businesses and the profits businesses make or do not make. That is why Senator Merkley and I are introducing this amendment. It is simple. It is direct. The public should expect nothing else. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to bring up a modified version of amendment No. 1481.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I would just briefly explain that we narrowed the amendment to only cover those who disclose, which means people pretty much making over $120,000 or so. It conforms with the disclosure requirement under the STOCK Act. Our concern is top staff in major decisionmaking positions and sitting U.S. Senators. That is our target, that is our concern, and we wanted to conform it with provisions Senator Gillibrand has put in her legislation subject to the STOCK Act. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate Senator Merkley's input and involvement in helping with this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1478.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I thank both the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Maine. Amendments Nos. 1478 and 1481 I will speak in more detail about my amendments later, but now I want to say a few words about each of them. First, they are consistent with the spirit of the underlying bill--a version of which I cosponsored. I am particularly appreciative to Senator Gillibrand for her good work on this overall issue. The underlying STOCK Act clarifies that insider trading laws apply the same way to Members of Congress as they do to the rest of the country, pure and simple. It makes sense. My amendments would also extend generally applicable laws to Members of Congress. One amendment would apply financial trade disclosure rules to Members in the same way they apply to others, such as corporate insiders, financial advisers, SEC employees. It would narrow the window for disclosure from 30 days down to 10 days. It would make Member disclosure more consistent with rules that require timely disclosure of transactions by corporate directors, officers, and large shareholders. We should do the same more strictly than we have in the past to do the same as they do. Let's hold ourselves to the same standard of openness and shine the light of transparency on our financial trades, if we make them. The second amendment would extend to Senators the same conflict of interest rules that currently apply to committee staff and executive branch officials. This amendment, which is No. 1481, is coauthored by Senator Merkley of Oregon. Members of the Senate and staff would be prohibited from owning or short-selling individual stock in companies affected by their official duties. We would still be permitted to invest in broad-based funds or place our assets in blind trusts, as permitted by the Select Armed Services Committee--SASC--rule and Federal regulations. When asked about the fact that the SASC conflict of interest rules apply to staff and DOD appointees, President George W. Bush's Deputy Secretary of Defense, Gordon England, said: I think Congress should live by the rules they impose on other people. That is why I am offering these two amendments. It is pretty simple. We vote on a whole range of very important issues in this country. We should not only not benefit from our votes on investments we might have, but it is important that the perception be that when we make decisions, we make them for the good of the country, not for our own financial interests. That is something the public finds pretty distasteful. These two amendments together will help fix that. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1481.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.