Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 12 noon, on Sunday, December 19; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate resume executive session to consider the New START treaty, as provided under the previous order.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, Senators should expect up to three rollcall votes, beginning at approximately 3 p.m. Those votes will be in relation to the Risch amendment to the START treaty and on confirmation of two judges.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. I agree with him that this bill has as broad a public support as you get on a trade bill, a bill that deals directly with tariffs and trade relationships and manufacturing and help for workers who are laid off and help both with training dollars and with health care dollars and health care tax incentives. It is supported--that is why it passed, I believe, by a voice vote in the House of Representatives last night, meaning nobody spoke out against it when it was passed overwhelmingly by voice vote. There may have been a few scattered ``nos.'' I am not even sure there was that. The ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, who will be chairman, Congressman Camp, from Michigan, was supporting it. The Ways and Means outgoing chairman, also from Michigan, Congressman Levin, also supported this. The AFL-CIO supports it. The National Retail Federation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce recognize this is good for the country. That is why I am so hopeful my colleagues will not block this legislation. One person standing up in this Chamber and blocking legislation because it is late in the year--I do not know if they are trying to cut some deal or what the reason is they would use for blocking it. But forget the politics of the support for it around the country, but look what it does that is so important: trade adjustment assistance. Since 2009, 367,000 workers were certified eligible for TAA, trade adjustment assistance. These workers use TAA to acquire new skills. When a worker is laid off, in Erie or right across the State line in Ashtabula, OH, you want to encourage them to go back to school and become, for example, a nurse, if they were working in a plant, and they are 45 years old, or you want them to go back to school and become a computer operator or to have some kind of job that you would hope would pay something comparable to the job they lost. This legislation is essential to do that. The health care tax credit program helps these trade-affected workers and retirees purchase private health insurance to replace the employer- sponsored coverage they lost. We want people to be able to get back on their feet. An objection to this motion by Senator Casey, a ``no'' vote on this, really does say: Stop. We are not interested in helping you do this. If we allow the program to go back, if this is defeated, the jobs that are shipped to China or India or other countries we do not have a trade agreement with would no longer be eligible. I can name by name factories in places such as Cleveland and Mansfield and Toledo and Dayton--and Senator Casey can in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, and Altoona and all over his State--companies that have shut down or moved much of their production to China or India. We want them to be eligible, even though we do not have a bilateral trade agreement with those countries as we do with NAFTA or CAFTA or some of the other bilateral trade agreements we have. That is why this is so important. I particularly ask my colleagues not to object to the passage of this bill. It has passed the House. We have the exact same language here. It is vetted. The Republican and Democratic leaders in both Houses say we ought to do it. Senator Baucus has worked very hard, harder than anyone, to renew TAA before the end of the year. But I particularly am concerned about the health care tax credit. We have tried to come to the floor and move that already. We have not been successful in doing it because of the peculiar nature of Senate rules and that a very small handful, sometimes as few as one, can stop legislation. But without the HCTC, come January 1, there will be thousands of people in my State who lose their health insurance. Hundreds of them-- if not several thousand--have spouses who will lose their health insurance because of what this will do in terms of the tax credit for health insurance. So I guess my question to Senator Casey--and then he can make the motion, which I fully support--is, why? What do you see in this that anybody would object to? I am at a loss to understand why anybody would object to this.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I see some real potential here. I thank the Senator from Alabama. I know Senator Casey and I have fought for American manufacturing for pretty much our whole careers. I know Senator Sessions has had some disagreements sometimes with our trade policy in this country. I think our trade policy has done more--and the way we do globalization has done as much damage to our country as almost anything in terms of jobs, especially manufacturing jobs. There are several parts of this bill, as the Senator recognizes--the GSP, about which the Senator obviously has some strong feelings; there are things the Senator has sounded as though he was agreeing with on TAA and with HCTC, with the Andean, and with the other part of the trade issue--I am drawing a blank on the other part of the tariff issue. It seems to me that except for the general standardized preferences, or GSP, it sounds as though we have a lot of agreement. I hope I can speak for Senator Casey as well in saying I will certainly work with the Senator on trying to fix the part of the GSP that doesn't work for Alabama. If we can either separate the other ones out and get a UC or work with them together and go back to the House, we are certainly willing to do that. I just don't want to see us adjourn--whatever day we adjourn, whether it is Monday or Tuesday or Christmas Day, I don't want to see us walk out of here without helping with trade adjustment, without helping with the health care tax credit, and leaving out Andean trade preferences and those things. So let's work together and see if we can do this in the next 24 hours and come back to the floor and work something through, if Senator Casey agrees with that too.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, as Ohio's junior Senator, I wish to add my remarks, as well as I am able, to the comments of Senator Voinovich. He didn't talk much about himself and his career, and I will do that for a moment. In his almost 50 years of public service, he always has been his own man, whether as a State legislator, county auditor, a county commissioner of Cuyahoga County, Lieutenant Governor, as mayor of Cleveland, Governor of Ohio, and now his 12 years in the Senate. He has always been his own man. He was rewarded in some sense when, as a 1958 graduate of Ohio University, the school created the Voinovich School of Leadership in Public Affairs. It is not often that a State university or any public entity names something after someone still in office, particularly something as prestigious as the Voinovich School of Leadership. I have visited it many times. There are always stimulating discussions that are uplifting to the public discourse. I thank Senator Voinovich for that. No matter how high George Voinovich rose, he always lived with his wife Janet and his children and grandchildren nearby in Collinwood, OH, in the same house, the same neighborhood in Cleveland, never forgetting where he came from. That tells me a lot about him as a public official. He likes to say, reflecting on our State's tremendous potential, ``the rust is off the belt,'' as people used to refer to Cleveland as the rust belt but now see it as so much more. It is going be the first place in the Nation with a field of wind turbines on the fresh water of Lake Erie. Clearly, this city has turned around. This is, in some significant measure, due to the efforts of Mayor and Governor and Senator George Voinovich. There are four things I particularly think of when I think of George Voinovich. One is Janet. Janet often travels back and forth with George, and I see both of them on our flight from Cleveland to Washington. Janet has always been at his side, whether as first lady or as his loving life's partner. The relationship they have is inspiring to Connie and me and many others. We thank you most importantly for that, George. When I think about the career of George Voinovich, I think of what he brought to this body--the perspective of an executive, of a Governor and a mayor. That is something many of us look to--Governor Shaheen, now Senator Shaheen, and soon-to-be Governor Brownback. It helps in our deliberations that someone has had the experience as a big city mayor in challenging times, and Governor of Ohio and, perhaps a less challenging time but a challenging time nonetheless, from the perspective that George Voinovich has brought as a chief executive coming to the Senate, sharing those thoughts and ideas with legislators. The second thing I think of is Lake Erie. If you live in northern Ohio or in the right places in Wisconsin and Minnesota and Michigan and Indiana and Illinois and New York and Pennsylvania, you think about the great lake you live near. In northern Ohio there is an old story. I grew up about 75 miles from the lake, and George grew up much closer. There is something about people who have grown up within 10 miles of Lake Erie. You can ask them wherever they are, which way is north, and they always seem to know. From what he has done with Asian carp and his belief in the importance of our greatest national resource, the five Great Lakes, his commitment is always to maintaining the pristine quality of that lake in terms of recreation, in terms of drinking water, in terms of industry, in terms of all the things that the Great Lakes, especially Lake Erie, do for Cleveland and everything in between. George Voinovich gets much credit for that. I think about George Voinovich in that he is always elevating the discussion about the quality of the Federal workforce. The term ``public servant,'' unfortunately, doesn't mean in the public's mind what it used to; partly deserved, perhaps, because of some people's missteps or worse, but mostly because people run campaigns against the government, whatever the reasons there. The term ``public servant'' is so important to George Voinovich, and he has done more than just mouth the words and compliment workers, which he has done often and deservedly. I applaud him for that. He has played a major role in shining the light on how we improve our Federal workforce. How do we give them opportunities for advancement, how do we do training, attract the right people to public service. I still think we have a terrific public workforce. Whether it is at the city, county, State, or Federal level, it is of high quality. And, in the great majority of cases, that is because of a few--and I say a very few--public servants such as George Voinovich who has kept the public spotlight on government service. I know Ralph Regula, the Congressman from Canton who retired in 2008, has shared a lot of those thoughts and ideas and continues to in his retirement with Senator Voinovich. Whether it is his work on Lake Erie or his contributions here, he has certainly made the Senate of the United States a better place. He has made the United States of America a better country. I thank him for that, as my senior Senator.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, Wednesday, December 15; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date; that the morning hour be deemed to have expired; that the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks there be a period of morning business until 11 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to concur with respect to H.R. 4853, the vehicle for the tax compromise, as provided under the previous order.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, Senator Stabenow, Democrat from Michigan, Senator Wicker, a Republican from Mississippi, and I bring this amendment to the floor to extend for 1 year modest enhancements to the Health Coverage Tax Credit Program. I am going to throw a slight curve ball and start with the cost of this amendment, which will help place its benefits into context. While we are awaiting a final score, based on some preliminary numbers, this amendment should come in under $50 million. That is less than .006 percent of the cost of this legislation. It is $50 million out of roughly $800 million. Now let's look at who the amendment helps. It helps Americans who took a kidney punch when the companies for which they worked either packed up and moved their operations overseas, or when the companies for which they worked went bankrupt and turned their pension obligations over to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. I probably do not have to tell you what it means when an American's pension goes over to PBGC. It means that American's pension is slashed--often dramatically. So these are Americans who either lost their jobs and their health coverage, or lost large chunks of their pensions and their health coverage. As I stated earlier, this amendment would extend modest enhancements to the health coverage tax credit or HCTC. The HCTC was established 8 years ago to help these workers and retirees purchase private health coverage to replace the employer- sponsored coverage they lost. Unfortunately, because of the modest size of the tax credit and other limitations, many credit-eligible individuals have remained uninsured. And as too many Americans know, the combination of no health insurance and a dramatically reduced pension spells financial hardship. Dramatic financial hardship, particularly for people forced into early unplanned retirement. These are Americans who worked hard, were loyal to their companies, earned their pensions and employer-sponsored health coverage day after day after day until the day they watched it all evaporate. Americans like Mike, from Brookville, OH, who wrote me to let me know how important the tax credit is and how worried he is that it will revert back to covering only 65 percent of premium. Mike is a Delphi retiree, thousands of who were left high and dry when the new GM abandoned them. Larry from Miamisburg, OH, is another Delphi retiree. In his letter to me, he said: I am writing to ask for help for us the Delphi retirees. First for the HCTC increase and ultimately for the loss of our retirements. Sir, they have taken everything from us, even now our dignity. Larry and Mike are victims of what can only be called a myopic pension deal cut by the new GM during its bankruptcy proceedings. The new GM clung to an agreement signed back in 1999 in order to provide full pensions to some union Delphi retirees and allow other nonunion and union retirees to receive deep pension cuts. Both groups of former employees--those who received their full benefits and those who did not--devoted most of their careers to GM before Delphi was spun off. Both groups of former employees earned their pensions by working hard for GM year-in and year-out. But Mike, Larry, and others like them were forced to live with financially devastating pension cuts, while their counterparts received their full pensions. And now these same retirees may once again lose access to health coverage. To prevent it, we need to extend the enhanced HCTC provisions. Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ARRA, the health coverage tax credit was increased slightly and the rules surrounding it were made more flexible. These modest changes enabled tens of thousands of trade-affected workers and retirees to use the tax credit and purchase private health coverage to replace the employer-sponsored health benefits they lost. Specifically the tax credit now covers 80 percent, rather than 65 percent of coverage costs; rather than 65 percent of coverage costs; beneficiaries are allowed to use the coverage to purchase coverage for themselves and their spouses; and they are allowed to apply the credit to less expensive coverage under a Voluntary Employee Benefit Association VEBA. Since these provisions were put into place, the number of displaced workers and retirees using the health coverage tax credit has more than tripled, increasing from about 14,000 to approximately 50,000. But the health coverage tax credit provisions are set to expire at the end of this year. We can not let that happen. It does not matter where the enhanced health coverage tax credit provisions come from. It could have been the Recovery Act. It could have been a bill the minority championed. The vehicle does not matter. But the merits of these provisions do matter. That is why Senators Stabenow and Wicker and I bring this amendment forward. These provisions have merit. They will keep Americans insured in an environment where the lack of coverage, coupled with pension cuts, could mean impoverishment. If we do not extend these provisions, the spouses of former workers will definitely lose their coverage, and those former workers themselves likely will. That is in no one's best interests. As I mentioned earlier, approving this amendment would likely increase the cost of this bill by less than .006 percent. That is a small price to pay for a lifeline. It is a small price to pay to keep middle class Americans from slipping into poverty. This should not be a matter of debate. This should not be the focus of a partisan divide. This should be a small step all of us take together on behalf of Americans who did what we asked them to do. They deserve our respect, they deserve our consideration, and--as our economy continues to pose challenges even before the hardships these Americans face--they deserve this modest extension of tax credit benefits. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment, No. 4805, be printed.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the second-degree amendment to the Reid-McConnell substitute to offer amendment No. 4763.

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. President, over the last few weeks, I have met and talked with many people across Ohio about our Nation's economic future--family and friends, constituents who are struggling to get by, and ministers and pastors who counsel them. I have read letters and e-mails from Ohioans who need unemployment insurance to find a new job and to provide for their families. I have heard from concerned citizens who are willing to sacrifice for them. Ericka from Cleveland wrote me: I make enough money to get by. I was ready for my taxes to go back up and I could have figured out a way to deal with it. But I am terrified for folks losing their jobs or getting by on low to moderate incomes. I worry that if they lose their unemployment benefits or refundable tax credits that the stress will be too much for too many. I am sickened at the idea of giving such incredibly wealthy people a tax break--I worry about the folks on the other end. The debate of whether to extend Bush tax cuts has been revealing-- about our policies and about the needs of people worried about putting food on the table. My top priority is to ensure that middle-class households get tax relief, and that unemployed Ohioans can continue to pay their bills and provide for their families while they look for work. And it is my priority to ensure that people's lives are not used in a cynical, political calculation. A lot of people are angry about this bill, and they should be. That is why I have filed amendments aimed at easing the financial burden on middle-class households, on small businesses, on seniors, and on American manufacturers. These are issues that deserve real debate, and America's middle class deserves real tax relief. I am angry that Republican Senators insist on awarding bonus handouts to billionaires and millionaires. But I would be more angry if we let them continue to play games with people's livelihoods. That is why it is with great reluctance that--even though I opposed the cloture vote yesterday because I still hoped, maybe beyond hope, we could come to a real agreement that would work for the middle class, work for the unemployed, and work for our budget deficit; we clearly could not--it is with great reluctance that I vote in favor of this bill. Too many working families--men, women, and children--are already suffering too much pain and anxiety. They need help now. But let's not forget how something happened this month in the U.S. Senate that we have never seen before, perhaps never in our Nation's history. A political party, the minority party--all 42 of them, all 42 of the Senators in the minority party--threatened for all intents and purposes to stop working, unless the majority party agreed to cut taxes for America's wealthiest 315,000 people--315,000 out of 165 million taxpayers. That is less than one-fifth of 1 percent of all Federal taxpayers. The minority party, the 42 minority party members--U.S. Senators-- were saying: We will do nothing until you take care of the 315,000 out of 165 million, until you take care of the 315,000 wealthiest taxpayers in this Nation. Because nothing much happens anymore in the U.S. Senate without a supermajority of 60 votes, the minority party knew its threats to stop everything just might work. Two weeks ago, all 42 Senate Republicans signed a letter to Majority Leader Reid telling him they would block everything until the Senate passed tax cuts for millionaires, for deca-millionaires, and for billionaires. It is ironic that a party that generally opposes a public employee's right to strike--as it did only last Wednesday--would effectively engage in a strike itself. This Republican work stoppage--since I guess Senators cannot actually go on strike--this Republican work stoppage means no tax cuts for the middle class unless millionaires get a larger tax cut. It means leaving middle-class families and unemployed workers in the crosshairs unless deca-millionaires got a huge tax cut. Their threat means that unemployment benefits for workers would end unless billionaire CEOs got their estate tax reduced. It means we cannot provide the childcare or the earned-income tax credits for low-income working families who have earned this vital assistance. It means blocking a cost-of-living increase for seniors on Social Security to help buy medicines, food, and shelter. It means we cannot address national security concerns such as the New START treaty--something that national security experts and every living Secretary of State from both parties support. It means we cannot do any of these things--provide for our Nation's health, economic health, and national security until we take care of the millionaires and billionaires first. Tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of our country--including, I should add, lots of U.S. Senators--come first, we are told. But what about the 86,000 Ohioan workers who saw their unemployment benefits run out 2 weeks ago? Or the 108,000 Ohioans expected to lose benefits at the end of this month? Sorry. Get in line behind the millionaires who get $90,000 in tax cuts. How about the insurance agent in Zanesville, OH, who makes $50,000 a year and is hoping for a tax cut of $800 for a small downpayment to help a daughter at the community college of Zane State? Too bad. Not until a deca-millionaire receives his tax cut of $400,000. What about a single mother with two children earning $30,000 a year and hoping for an expanded childcare and earned-income tax credit? Tough luck. Wait in line for the billionaire to get his tax cut of tens of millions of dollars. What do they think this country is all about? That we cannot help people who have lost their jobs who are desperately looking for work? That we cannot extend a tax break to a sales clerk making $27,000 a year who is raising two children until the millionaire gets his cash? That we cannot cut taxes for the broad middle class until the richest 1 percent of our country gets tens of thousands of dollars of tax cuts? To hold middle-class Americans hostage--as all 42 Republican Senators have done--may be the most cynical political act I have ever seen. In a recent Cleveland Plain Dealer article, Susan Harrell, a laid off bookkeeper, who does not like how tax cuts for the wealthy is a condition for maintaining unemployment benefits, said of the deal: It's like extortion. Either you do what we say, or several million Americans will be living on the street. Think about that. This is an unemployed, laid off bookkeeper. Like many people who write me--many of these people have worked all their lives--20, 30, 40 years. They are laid off. Susan writes: ``It's like extortion. Either you do what we say''--give us our tax cuts for millionaires--``or several million Americans will be living on the street.'' What kind of country is this that such a cynical, cynical, cynical exercise would happen? In the same article, Debbie Kline, coordinator of Cleveland Jobs for Justice, compares the choice as ``weighing tax cuts [for the rich] and people not eating, living, and surviving.'' Some say the Republicans are merely obstructing or gaming the Senate rules. But I am with Susan--legislative extortion may be a more accurate description. Unfortunately, we may have to pay the ransom. That means tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires in exchange for unemployment insurance and middle-class tax relief. Let me tell you about some people who are caught in the middle. Michael from Shelby County, in western Ohio, writes me: I am an unemployed father of four and one of the tens of thousands of faceless Ohioans about to be cut off from unemployment insurance benefits. It is obscene to think that a tax giveaway for the wealthy is gaining more traction politically than helping working class people survive. As an unemployed worker I have no lobby or trade association backing. Instead, I have to worry about losing my house, my credit rating and any sense of being a beneficiary of the ``American Dream''. What am I supposed to do? Forty-two Republicans say: Sorry. Get in line. Wait until we give the tax cuts for the rich. Stacie from Meigs County, down on the Ohio River: I am a mother of three school-aged, honor students, one with moderate Cerebral Palsy. I have a Masters Degree in Education and teach in the public school system in the State of Ohio. My husband has been unemployed for 18 months. During this time he has worked part-time and attended school full-time maintaining an excellent grade point average. As a family we have worked very hard to adjust to our change in circumstance like many other Americans. However with the loss of $60,000+ in income we had to file Chapter 13. Now we are faced with not having any unemployment benefits. This will be a loss of another $450 per week. We need to feed our family. Please vote to extend the unemployment insurance for all unemployed workers who are trying to better themselves during this economic crisis. What about the budget deficit which concerns all of us? Two weeks ago, when the deficit commission released its report, Members of both parties somberly explained that nothing mattered as much as the increasing debt that will burden our children and grandchildren. A year from now, when Republicans will likely block extension of unemployment, we will remind them how their own $128 billion for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires over the next 3 years alone has already blown a hole in the budget. We will remind them what their tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires cost when they argue vociferously for cuts to education, for the privatization of Medicare and Social Security, and for scaling back health care. Let's not forget that congressional Republicans who were outspoken about the debt are the people most responsible for it. Congressional Republicans have said that cutting taxes on the highest earners would pay for itself. It hasn't. The Presiding Officer sat in the House of Representatives in those days when the huge Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in 2001 and 2003 passed. They always said they would pay for themselves. Not even close. We went from a surplus when President Clinton left office, the largest surplus in U.S. history, to massive deficits when President Bush left office, the largest deficits up to that point in American history. Congressional Republicans, who were the most responsible for this economic situation, along with President Bush, said that the tax cuts for the wealthiest would grow the economy and create jobs. They haven't. Under President Bush, for 8 years, we lost 673,000 private sector jobs. We actually declined in the number of Americans working in the private sector during those 8 years. From 2001 to 2007, we had below average economic growth. Republicans say that if millionaires have to pay the same tax they did before the Bush tax cuts; that is, during the Clinton years, then job creation will suffer. But it is a fact that during the Clinton years we created 22 million jobs in those 8 years--again, 21 million private sector jobs and 22 million overall. We created 21 million private sector jobs compared to private sector job loss during the Bush years. Congressional Republicans voted for the Iraq war but have ignored its costs, charging it to our children and grandchildren. In 2003, Republicans voted to bail out the drug and insurance companies in the name of Medicare privatization and charged it to our children and grandchildren. If the last decade is any indication, it is that trickle-down economics simply doesn't work. The last decade has shown it has failed history as an experiment. Meanwhile, during the last 2 years alone, Democrats--usually without Republican support--have already passed $500 billion in tax cuts through the ARRA, through the Small Business Act, through the HIRE Act. Our economic policies that are focused on the middle class are helping to create jobs and turn around our economy. For the past 50 years, Republicans and Democrats alike have always acted to provide extended unemployment during tough economic times. That is because it is not only a moral obligation, but it is also an economic stimulus for our economy. The same goes for the childcare and the earned-income tax credits. They strengthen the middle class. They give people opportunity to join the middle class. They help the economy by injecting money into the economy. So this debate really comes down to whose side are you on and whom are you fighting for. It is a choice between paying an extortionist's ransom--we are not going to do anything; we are going to do a work stoppage unless we do tax cuts for the rich--it is a choice between paying an extortionist's ransom or letting the middle class continue to struggle. It is a choice forced upon us during a time when we simply can't afford to play politics with people's livelihoods. I can't look an unemployed worker in the eye and tell him that our political principles stand in the way of their earned benefits. As much as I dislike what they did and how they did it, as much as I dislike these tax cuts that go overwhelmingly to the richest people, the estate tax cuts, the huge hole they are driving in the deficit, as much as I dislike that--and they are my principles I stand on--I just can't imagine saying to an unemployed worker: Sorry, as much as I want to help you, I just don't believe this is fair that we should do this. I can't look at a single mother making $27,000 a year and say: The earned-income tax credit is not important, even though it is for you, and turn my back on them. The unemployed worker, the single parent making $28,000 a year working two jobs should not have to end the holiday season and enter the new year worried because of politics and about how the arcane Senate procedure stood in the way. I may not like the choice, but I have to stand with the Ohioans who may have to wait until midnight when their unemployment benefits are activated to buy necessities such as milk and bread. We have to stand with the mother and the father and the teacher and the nurse and the farmer who need middle-class tax relief to care for a child, afford a college education, or to build a small business. It is with that in mind that I vote in favor of this bill--people such as Ericka and Susan and Debbie and Michael and Stacy who say: Enough is enough. Please help me. Because of them, I will continue to fight on their behalf. I hope my Republican colleagues learn something from this. Legislative threats of a work stoppage and legislative blackmail may have helped their rich friends and may continue today, but in the end, it is bad for our economy, it is bad for the Senate, it is terrible for our country, and it is terrible for our future. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Voinovich, my State's senior Senator, be recognized at 10:30 a.m. Wednesday, December 15, to bid farewell to the Senate for up to 20 minutes; further, that at 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, December 21, Senator Specter be recognized to deliver his farewell to the Senate; provided further that on Wednesday, December 15, upon conclusion of the vote on proceeding to executive session, the Senate return to legislative session in order for Senator Lincoln to say farewell to the Senate; that at the conclusion of her remarks and any of her colleagues, the Senate then resume executive session at the same status prior to Senator Lincoln's recognition in legislative session.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 4005, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, if there is no further business before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, Senators should expect a series of up to four rollcall votes at approximately noon tomorrow. At 2:15, the Senate will proceed to vote on the motion to proceed to executive session to consider START. As a reminder, under a previous order, there will be several farewell speeches tomorrow: Senator Bayh at 10 a.m., Senator Voinovich at 10:30 a.m., and Senator Lincoln following the 2:15 vote.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. My sense is similar to yours. I was just on a TV show a minute ago. I was asked, the liberals or the conservatives, what they think about this. This really is not a liberal-conservative issue. First of all, the tax cuts overwhelmingly go to the wealthiest taxpayers. We are seeing the kinds of tax cuts that millionaires and billionaires get from the income tax and from the estate tax. But it is also equally important that it blows a hole in our budget deficit. In some sense, we are borrowing tens of billions of dollars every year now--if this agreement becomes law, we are borrowing tens of billions of dollars every year from the Chinese, and we are putting it on the credit cards of our children and grandchildren for them to pay off who knows when, and then we are giving these tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires. In those simple terms, it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense in our relationship with China. It doesn't make sense in the lost jobs that come from that China trade policy. It doesn't make sense in undermining the middle class. It doesn't make sense in terms of fairness in the tax system. It doesn't make sense for our children and grandchildren and the burden they are going to have to bear to pay off this debt. Giving a millionaire a tax cut and charging it to our kids, who are paying taxes on, unfortunately, in the last few years, declining wages, is morally reprehensible. I know Senator Sanders has been on the floor 2 hours now talking about this and how important it is and really analyzing it and educating about it and all that. I think about the economic policy, too, that this embodies. Nine or 10 years ago, Senator Sanders and the Presiding Officer, when he was a Member of the House, Senator Udall from Colorado, and I and others voted against the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, principally because those tax cuts overwhelmingly went to the wealthy and ended up adding to our national debt. We had a surplus then. We sure don't now. We had the largest surplus we ever had in 2001. It blew a hole in that. But we passed those tax cuts under the belief, those who supported it-- President Bush and Senator McConnell and so many others--under the belief that that kind of trickle-down economics would grow our economy. In the 8 years--and this is not partisan, this is not opinion, this is fact--from January 1, 2001, to January 1, 2009, President Bush's 8 years, we actually had private sector job loss in this country. Contrast that with a different economic policy--January 1, 1993, to January 1, 2001, the Clinton 8 years. Again, this isn't partisan, this isn't opinion, this is fact. During the Clinton 8 years, we had 21 million private sector jobs created--21 million private sector jobs created--and literally zero private sector jobs in the Bush 8 years of trickle-down economics. Why would we blow a hole in the budget, which this bill does, for our kids to pay off? Why would we continue an economic policy that clearly did not work for this country? It didn't work for the middle class. We saw middle-class wages--not only no job increase during those 8 years, except for the people at the very top, we saw actual wage stagnation or worse. Most Americans did not get a raise during the 8 Bush years. Most Americans simply saw their wages flat or in many cases decline. The superwealthy saw a big increase in their incomes and in their net assets. And now we are going to give a tax break to them. This is not class warfare. Lots of people I know have a lot of money. I don't have any ill will for them. But why would we help those people who have done so very well and then have our children pay for it? Senator Sanders just mentioned the letter from Barbara Kennelly from one of the largest seniors organizations in the country and what this will mean for Social Security. Here is my fear. If this is passed, we are going to see our budget deficit increase, according to the Congressional Budget Office, about $900 billion because of this package, $800-some billion over the next couple of years. As soon as it is signed by President Obama, even though it was negotiated with the Republican Senate leadership and overwhelming numbers of Republicans in the Senate and House--I assume they are going to vote for it--they are going to say: Look at the huge budget deficit President Obama created. From that day on, they are going to go after ways to cut the budget. That is OK. I agree we need to deal with spending and taxes and the whole picture. But I also know from watching Republicans--I saw them in the House when they moved toward Medicare privatization in 2003, 2004, and 2005. They had some success. Fortunately, we were able to beat back most of it. I remember that in 2005, after President Bush was reelected in a very close race, he spoke repeatedly about privatizing Social Security. I know that is what they want to do. In the 1990s, Speaker Gingrich-- fortunately beaten back by President Clinton--tried to privatize Medicare. That is the way they cut the budget, they go after Medicare and Social Security. So this vote on this package--to me, we need to call the President, write the President, work with the President to say: No deal, and this has to be something very different from what it is now because it will cause huge deficits our children and grandchildren will have to bear. It will not help the economy appreciably because we saw what the trickle-down economic policies of the Bush years did. It does not help the middle class enough. So it is pretty clear to me how this jeopardizes Social Security, how it jeopardizes Medicare, how it will force more cuts and more pressure on those programs that have lifted so many people into the middle class. In 1965, when Medicare was first passed, half of the senior citizens in this country had no health insurance--half of the seniors had no health insurance. Today 99 percent of seniors have health insurance, something like that. I know we are a country now that has created a strong middle class. We have seen that middle class--because of these tax cuts for the wealthy, trickle-down kind of economic policy, we have seen the middle class shrink in the last few years. I do not want that to keep happening. That is why I am very concerned about this. That is why I am working with the Senate to say: No deal. We need to much more seriously focus on not running up a huge debt, on making sure Social Security is protected, on an economic policy that works for the middle class, on a tax policy that is fair to the middle class. That is why Senator Sanders' work is so important on the floor today, taking the floor for a longer period than anybody I have seen since I have been in the Senate, in a filibuster kind of setting, where he is raising these questions, asking these questions, educating the public, talking to people all over the country, in this Chamber and outside to change this policy.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. It tells a story. I came to the floor right after that vote. I had supported it all along. I cosponsored Senator Sanders' effort to bring that to the floor, for the $250 check for all seniors and all disabled veterans, I might add, not just Social Security beneficiaries. But I came to the floor right afterwards because I was pretty amazed. I know there is partisanship here. I know some people think their whole view of the world is to give tax cuts to the richest people of the world and it will all trickle down and we will all do better, it will lift all boats. That is a pretty good economic theory you might have learned at Harvard or you might have learned at Johns Hopkins near here or wherever. But it does not work. It is a nice theory, but it does not work to lift all boats. So Senator Sanders' effort was to provide a $250 check, one time, at a cost of $14 billion. But one time, not continued $14 billion--one time for seniors who had not had a cost-of-living adjustment in 2 years. It just seemed to make so much sense when the average senior in this country gets about a $14,000-a-year Social Security check. I think that is about $1,200 a month. That is not their entire income for most seniors, but it is a big part of it. Many seniors live only on that. Many more seniors live on that, but only another couple $300, $400 a month. There is not inflation maybe for people my age so much in this country, but if you are older and you have a lot of health care costs, there is inflation because the health care costs seem to go up higher than maybe anything but higher education, and maybe as much as that. So it was important that $250 be provided, we think, to every senior in the country and every disabled vet. What was so amazing about it was that 42 Republican Senators signed a letter saying they would do nothing, nothing in the Senate, until tax cuts for the rich were approved, until they were signed into law. Now, I have never seen Senators engage in a work stoppage or a strike. I mean, it was not quite a strike, which it is probably illegal for us to strike. I do not know, maybe. But it was a work stoppage. They are saying: We are not doing anything until you give tax cuts to my rich friends, and I might say also to many people in the House and Senate whose income is in that bracket too. I am not accusing them of that, to be sure, but they were there for their rich friends and their biggest contributors and the wealthiest people in this country. But they were not there for a senior citizen living on $1,200 a month that could use that extra $250. I have met too many seniors, and I know the Presiding Officer, when he travels to Colorado Springs or he goes to Cimarron or he goes to Denver, I know he hears seniors say: I cut my pills in half because I need my prescription to run for 2 months rather than 1 because I cannot afford it. Or I skipped my medicine today because my house is too cold, and I do not have enough heat. We know seniors make those choices. We make choices here, and the choice we made is 42 Republicans made it and blocked it because we need 60 votes. We had a majority of voters, an easy majority, for Senator Sanders' effort, 53 votes, 53 votes to do this, the $250, but we need 60 votes. So 42 Republican Senators engaged in their work stoppage saying: We are not doing anything until we get these tax cuts for the rich. They said no to seniors. I am amazed by that, the callousness. I guess I am even more amazed when you consider--what is today, the 10th--when you consider in 2 weeks it is Christmas Day. That does not seem to bother them. It does not seem to bother them on unemployment benefits. And 85,000 Ohioans, a week and a half ago, lost their unemployment benefits--85,000. Their holiday season is ruined. But I guess all of us will go home. I want to go home and be with Connie and my kids on Christmas. My children are grown. We have one grandchild. I want to be with him for as much of Christmas as I can. But we have a job to do today, this week and next week and this month and this year; and that is to extend unemployment benefits to people who have lost them, who are looking for jobs as hard as they can in a great majority of cases, and extending the tax cuts for the middle class and doing the right thing. So far, we have not done that. I need to go to the airport. But I want to yield back to Senator Sanders for his work today. I hope next week, when we come back on Monday, we are prepared to do whatever it takes to say no deal on this one and to make this work for the middle class, make it work for Social Security beneficiaries, make it work for unemployed workers.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. That $750 billion is $75 billion a year for 10 years for millionaires and billionaires versus $13 billion once for senior citizens. In essence, that $750 billion--without getting too much into the weeds on numbers--in essence, we are borrowing that money from China, charging it to our children and grandchildren, putting it on their credit cards. They will pay it off who knows when. Then we are giving that $750 billion to people who are fabulously wealthy already, right? But they are unwilling to move forward on unemployment benefits or on your proposal to help a senior with $250 because they really are on strike. They say: We are not doing anything until you give tax cuts to the rich, to my people.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. I hear what the Senator says about the tax burden in this country; that it falls predominantly on the middle class. When I hear him talk about the estate tax, couples pay no estate tax on the first $10 million of their assets after they both die. Considering they shelter a good bit beyond that, then the tax rate only on the dollars above $10 million were lowered significantly in this proposal--and then what has happened with extending the tax cuts. I was intrigued, I guess it was yesterday, when the Senator offered a motion on the floor. In light of the fact that a relatively small group of people are getting huge tax cuts--millionaires and billionaires-- whether it is the estate tax upon their death that their heirs enjoy this huge tax break or whether it is when earning $1 million or $2 million or $5 million a year and getting a huge tax cut, the motion yesterday simply said, if I recall, that every Social Security beneficiary--and that is tens of millions--

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Fifty million people would get a check for $250 from the government, because, I believe, about $13 billion for 1 year, it wouldn't have been a long-term deficit issue; it would have been a one-time cost for people who didn't get a cost-of-living adjustment this year. So we know the average Social Security beneficiary gets about $14,000 a year. We know an awful lot of Social Security beneficiaries live mostly on their Social Security. Most people have a little bit more than that, but an awful lot have only a little bit more or nothing more so that is what they live on. They have no cost-of- living adjustment this year because of this sort of complicated formula. But what was pretty amazing to me is how at the same time, every Republican signed a letter, 42 Republican Senators signed a letter saying they will do nothing else until they get their tax cuts for the rich. It is almost like a work stoppage. It is almost like the Republican Senators are on strike, saying: We are not going to vote or we are not going to do anything around here. We are not going to work or vote yes on anything around here until you give my people a tax cut, my wealthy friends and contributors in my States. So the contrast of their saying we will not do anything for anybody else except millionaires and billionaires, we will not--even a $250 check, since there was no cost-of-living adjustment to seniors who are making about $14,000 a year from Social Security. What that check would mean to them is--I think that contrast made was so important to understand. Give us some more about what that contrast means with those Social Security beneficiaries.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. It was filibustered again, blocked by a minority of Senators, right?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I stand here simply amazed at what happened in the Senate, although I probably shouldn't be. I stand here amazed because in these economic times, senior citizens from Gallipolis to Ashtabula, to Middletown, to Toledo, in my State, and from the Iron Range to Rochester, MN, the State of the Presiding Officer, and all across this country, who didn't get a cost-of-living adjustment this year; who are victims of inflation--medical inflation especially--and the inflation rate is not very high in our society, so they didn't get a cost-of-living adjustment, even though their cost of living has gone up--every single Republican in this institution--every single Republican--voted no on a $250 one-time check to go to senior citizens. It would have meant the equivalent of about 1\1/2\ percent or less than that cost-of-living adjustment. If they are so interested in balancing the budget that they do not want to do that, maybe that is one argument--although not a very good one in these economic times--but when, in the same week, they sign a letter saying we are not going to do anything--every single Republican signed a letter saying we are not going to do anything in the Senate-- we are not voting yes on anything until we get the tax cut for millionaires and billionaires, that is pretty outrageous. In the tax cut they are asking for, someone who makes $10 million a year gets a $40,000 tax cut--I am sorry, somebody making $10 million a year gets a $100,000 tax cut, I believe; somebody making $1 million gets a $40,000 tax cut. And they are saying they are willing to vote for that, but they are not willing to vote for $250 for every senior citizen in this country. The cost of that, if you want to get in the weeds and talk about budget issues, the cost of that $250 that Senator Sanders sponsored would be about $13 billion. The cost of these tax cuts for the wealthy is about $700 billion over the next 10 years. Basically, what they are doing, what we are doing for their tax cuts for the wealthy is in essence borrowing $700 billion from China and putting it on our children's and grandchildren's credit card to pay off later--let them worry about it--and giving that money to millionaires and billionaires. They are willing to do that, but they will not vote $250, a total of $13 billion one time. They are not willing, for this year, to help those seniors in Youngstown and Lima and Zanesville and Chillicothe and Tipp City, OH. I just don't get it. I know it is the Christmas season. That is not a reason to do it, but you would think there would be a little more generosity in their hearts during this most difficult time for seniors who are barely making it. The average senior citizen in this country gets about $14,000 Social Security a year. Many seniors in my State, in places such as Columbus and Dayton and Portsmouth, live on not much more than their Social Security check, and a $250 payment would have made a difference--maybe not having to split their medicine in two and taking half a dosage each time or maybe actually being able to heat their homes as it gets colder and colder as the winter comes upon us, that they would have a little opportunity to at least do that and live a little more comfortably. Instead this place again said yes to tax cuts for the rich, no to the senior citizens. A majority of Senators voted for this, but every single Republican voted against it. I don't get it. I don't mean to sound partisan, but when it is like that it is unbelievable. When Senators--most of us are going to go home and enjoy our holidays--that we would put our Nation's seniors through something like that. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

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