Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Montana, who laid out exactly why his efforts to extend the Bush tax cuts to the middle class up to $250,000 and to not extend them beyond that is the exact right public policy. It is good fiscal policy. It is good economic policy. It is good for our country. It is exactly the right thing to do. I thank him for his explanation of including the earned-income tax credit, which is the best tax incentive to help people who are working hard, playing by the rules, making $20,000 to $30,000 a year, get a much fairer tax--really encouraging work the way the IETC does. I also thank the chairman of the Finance Committee, the senior Senator from Montana, for including the unemployment insurance in this because 85,000 Ohioans have lost their unemployment insurance. These are people--or many of them are, as I have read letters on the Senate floor and will read a couple today--who have worked for 20, 30, 40 years and simply can't find a job. There are five people applying for every one job opening in my State and in this country. It is so important that these people continue to get some assistance. In spite of what some of my Republican colleagues suggest, unemployment insurance is insurance, not welfare. Their employer, on their behalf, pays into the unemployment insurance fund in their States. When they lose their jobs, because it is insurance, they should get assistance. It is like fire or health insurance. You don't want to use it, but you want it to be there if you need it. That is why it is so important. I appreciate Senator Baucus's discussion of why this is the right policy. Before I read some letters from people about unemployment benefits, I want to talk about why that is the right policy. The Bush tax cuts primarily went to the wealthy in 2001 and 2003. As Senator McCaskill said, it was an experiment. For 10 years, we tried to see if this worked. I didn't support that when it passed in the House many years ago because I thought they were tilted toward upper income people and not focused on the middle class. So it was an experiment in many ways where major tax breaks were given to the rich, and according to the so- called trickle-down economic theory, they would hire people and much would trickle down and they would provide jobs and strengthen the middle class. What we saw during the Bush 8 years as the main thrust of the economic policy was the tax break for the rich. That was the stated policy; that if we cut taxes enough on the wealthiest Americans, it would drive the economy forward. But we know that in those 8 years of the Bush administration there was a 1 million net job increase, not enough to provide jobs to keep up with the growing population or not enough to provide jobs for the kids coming out of high school or those leaving the Army or those coming out of college. So it is clear the experiment failed. They cut taxes for the rich and there was only a 1 million increase in jobs. It didn't work. Look at the 8 years before that, the Clinton years--and these are facts, not opinions--where President Clinton did a mix of tax cuts, tax increases on the wealthy and spending cuts, and he balanced the budget. We ended up with a 22 million job increase with that economic policy, which we want to follow today, versus a 1 million job increase, which was not even enough to keep up with the growing population with the Bush economic policy. It is clear what this means--not to mention what Senator Baucus pointed out too. We are, in essence, borrowing $700 billion from the Chinese to pay for these tax cuts. That is where we borrow a lot of money. We are talking about borrowing $700 billion and putting it on a credit card for our children and grandchildren. The pages sitting here will get to pay off that $700 billion in tax cuts for the rich, and then the $700 billion is given to the wealthiest taxpayers. So they want to borrow from China, charge it to our children and grandchildren, and give it to millionaires and billionaires. What kind of moral policy, let alone the bad economic policy, is that? It is bad fiscal policy to do anything but tax cuts for the middle class. It is bad economic policy. It is not fair to our children and grandchildren. Also, I will make a comparison in this bill between unemployment benefits, extending and maintaining unemployment benefits to the 85,000 families in Ohio who found out 2 days ago their unemployment insurance was no longer. Some of those families will lose their homes, and a father will have to sit down with his 12-year-old daughter and say: Honey, we are going to lose this house and move somewhere else. The child will say: What school district are we going to be in, Dad? He would say: I don't know yet. We know the hardship this will create if we don't extend these benefits. These people want to go back to work and they are trying to find jobs, but there are not enough jobs out there. They need money for gasoline to drive around and look for jobs, and they need all these things just to stay alive and have a decent standard of living. But take the money in the unemployment extension--as John McCain's chief economic adviser during his 2008 campaign said, $1 put into unemployment benefits of a person in Zanesville or Lima or Hamilton, OH, that father or mother, that man or woman will spend that money because they need to. They need to buy shoes for their kids, food for themselves; they need to heat their homes and put gas in their cars. That money will be spent. Every dollar you put into unemployment generates $1.60 in economic activity, and that will create jobs. Conversely, a dollar in tax cuts for the wealthy--a dollar that goes to a millionaire--what are they going to buy that they are not already buying? They meet their needs. They have millions of dollars at their discretion to do it. They are not going to buy more food or go to a fancy restaurant or take an extra vacation. They have the money they need. That $1 going to the wealthy, according to the analysis of John McCain's chief economic adviser, ends up generating about 30 cents in activity and creating significantly fewer jobs. I want to read a couple of letters from people in my State of Ohio about what this legislation means in terms of unemployment benefits. This is from Shanata from Montgomery County, in the Dayton area: I have been out of work since February and have been receiving unemployment benefits. I am 36 years old and have been working since I was 16. This is par for the course in the letters we get. These people have been working hard since a very young age. I have applied for 100 jobs in the past month alone, and have found absolutely nothing. If unemployment stops, I will have even less. I am in school full-time, but I know that I can't return in January since I will have absolutely no way to pay my bills. Unemployment is not allowing me to go on trips, eat out every day, shop 'til I drop, or anything else frivolous. I just need to keep a roof over my head and food in me and my daughters' stomachs. Please work diligently to help extend unemployment for those who will have nothing without it. This is Dagney from Lorain County, my home county, between Cleveland and Toledo: Please, Senator, please do everything you can to get the unemployment extension passed. I have been unemployed for more than a year and have not found a job yet. We are two months behind on our mortgage and I am so afraid we are going to lose our house. We have exhausted our savings and my husband is off work too due to an accident. I am so worried. Please help us. This is from Carol from Summit County, in Akron: I am writing for myself and thousands of other unemployed Ohioans whose unemployment benefits are running out. We need help. Mr. President, again, 85,000 families lost their benefits in my State alone three nights ago. I am 61 years old and have been on unemployment since June 2010 and my benefits run out December 20. There are no extensions at this time and there are no jobs for a senior citizen with over 40 years of work experience. Believe me, I have tried everything from Walmart to McDonalds. I have no savings and lost what little retirement I had a couple years ago with many others. I'm not asking for a handout--just some help until the job market picks up out here. Please encourage Congress to provide at least one more extension--without it, many Ohioans will be destitute. I never thought when I was raising my family as a single mom that I would find myself in this position at this age. I know my colleagues want to do the right thing. I believe even those who vote no on everything that I believe in, I think they want to do the right thing. I just wonder--I know they get letters like this because every one of us--whether you are in Missoula or in Eugene or in Dayton, every one of us gets letters from constituents in our States who are hurting, even in States that have pretty good economies. I don't know if they don't read them or if our colleagues never meet people like this. I assume our colleagues probably don't visit food pantries as I do, but some of my other colleagues do and hear the stories. I don't know that I have been to a food pantry in the last 2 years where I don't hear a volunteer--and most of them are staffed by all volunteers--or a paid director say: You know, see those people over there? They used to bring food in, and now they are picking up food. That is the story I hear time after time. I don't think my colleagues are hard hearted or callous. I just wonder if they know, or if they are hearing from, people like Carol and Shanata and Dagney, or if they are not visiting food pantries and stopping at a union hall and talking to an out-of-work carpenter or a laborer who hasn't been called to a worksite for 7 or 8 months. I have said to the majority leader that I think we should stay here until New Years. I would rather be home with my family; family is very important to me. But if we don't continue these unemployment benefits, we are going to ruin the holidays for those 85,000 Ohioans--and that number keeps growing--so we don't deserve much of a holiday either if that is the best we can do. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I will in a moment--in the spirit of fair play, we are waiting for some Republicans to enter the Chamber--I will ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from S. 3981 so we can bring up and move forward on maintaining unemployment benefits for thousands of people. In my State alone, last night at midnight, 88,000--that is 1,000 people in every county; we have 88 counties in Ohio--Ohioans saw their unemployment benefits stopped because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not want to maintain unemployment benefits. What is shocking to me is that this Senate and the House of Representatives, regardless of party, for years, when our country has been in bad economic times, have maintained unemployment benefits for laid-off workers. Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, has made a couple comments that disturb me and make it very hard to do this. We need a supermajority. We need 60 votes. They continue to filibuster or threaten to filibuster. Senator McConnell has made two statements, one through a letter in the last 24 hours and one 3 or 4 weeks ago when he said his No. 1 goal is that Barack Obama be a one-term President. I understand political parties, but his No. 1 goal is that President Obama serve only one term? Minority Leader McConnell, in a letter signed by all his Republican colleagues, which was sent to Senator Reid, signed by every Republican, said: We write to inform you we will not agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed on any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increases that currently will happen in January. What the Republicans are doing, I don't even understand it. They are saying they insist on a millionaire and billionaire tax cut come January, and they will, for all intents and purposes, shut down the government if they don't get their way. They are saying: Forget extending unemployment benefits, forget food safety legislation, forget don't ask, don't tell, forget the Russian-American START treaty--it used to be that politics ended at the water's edge; those days are over--and forget a middle-class tax cut. They are saying: We will shut down the government if we can't get a tax cut for billionaires and millionaires. My first priority is extending unemployment benefits to the 60 or 70,000 Michiganders; perhaps from the State of Senator Schumer, I would guess over 100,000 New Yorkers; from New Mexico, I would guess probably 10,000; and Alaska, thousands in that State. They are willing to say to those unemployed workers--and this is not unemployment welfare; this is unemployment insurance. Every worker in the State, he or his employer--academicians will debate whether the employee or employer actually pays it, but they put into the unemployment insurance fund. When they are laid off, they get money out of the fund. It is similar to health insurance or car insurance. You don't want to collect on it, but it is called insurance. You hope you are working so you don't have to collect on it, but they need to. There are five people applying for every open job, on average. In Michigan and Ohio, it is probably worse than that. These are not people sitting around with nothing to do, not wanting to work. I will not do this today, but I have read letter after letter from Ohioans saying: Here is my story. I have lost my medical coverage because I don't have a job, and you are cutting off my unemployment benefits--``you'' meaning the Republican filibuster. They will say: I am about to lose my house, and I have to tell my 12- year-old daughter we will have to switch schools, and I don't even know what school we will go to because we are going to live in an apartment somewhere else because the house is foreclosed on. They are now going to the food bank they used to give money to. Do my Republican colleagues know any of these people? Do they go out and talk to people who have lost their jobs and have to explain to their families that they will lose their house and explain to the wife that their insurance has been canceled because they will not extend unemployment benefits? This is not a big, new welfare program. This is extending unemployment benefits. I just don't get it. They would rather do tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. They would rather borrow $700 billion from the Chinese, put it on a credit card that their kids and grandkids will have to pay off, and then give it to billionaires and millionaires. That is the choice they are making. It is clear whose side people are on here. Are you on the side of maintaining unemployment benefits or are you on the side of millionaires and billionaires? Are you for giving a tax cut to the middle class, moving to pay down the budget deficit? It is so clear what we need to do. My colleagues still aren't here to make the request. I will add a few more comments. The other reason to maintain unemployment benefits is all economics. Senator McCain, when he was a candidate, his chief economic adviser said the best way to grow the economy, the best stimulus dollar you can spend is unemployment insurance. Because when you put a dollar in a laid-off worker's pocket from Lima or Zaynesville, she will spend it at the local grocery store, the local shoe store, to pay property tax, to pay the gas bill, whatever. That money is recycled in the economy. You give a tax cut to upper income people--a millionaire or billionaire--according to John McCain's economic adviser, you only get a 32-cent bang for your buck out of that versus $1.60 when you extend unemployment benefits, when you pay unemployment benefits. What that means clearly is the best thing to do for our economy is these unemployment benefits, not tax cuts for somebody already making $3 million a year. They are not going to buy anything more. They already have what they need. To give them another $30,000 or $50,000 in tax cuts simply does not mean anything. It is so important for purposes of the budget deficit, it is so important for purposes of growing this economy, and it is so important because it is the right thing to do for our workers, our laid off people, our communities that suffer if these workers are not spending these dollars in our communities. It is just so important that we move forward and do that. Mr. President, I will yield the floor for one of my colleagues who has another unanimous-consent request.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Yes.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I would emphasize what all my colleagues are saying, particularly what the Senator from Missouri said--a State that, as of last night at midnight, probably had some 40,000 to 50,000, to 60,000 unemployed people lose their unemployment benefits they had earned because they had worked and they and their employer paid into it, but I would especially emphasize what she said. Ten years ago, these tax cuts primarily, overwhelmingly, went to the wealthiest Americans, and it was an economic experiment. I opposed them. I was in the House then. Congresswoman Stabenow opposed them. She was in the Senate then, I guess. But it is clear they haven't worked--1 million jobs during the Bush years, 22 million jobs during the Clinton years. As a result--and I would emphasize this too--all of these proposals we are going to bring forward now--and we will ask unanimous consent to get these passed to get the economy up and running--the cost of all of them is less than the cost of this tax cut to millionaires and billionaires. So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged of S. 3981, a bill to provide for a temporary extension of unemployment insurance provisions; that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating thereto appear at the appropriate place in the Record as if read.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Yes, that is it. To illustrate that further to Senator Schumer and to the Presiding Officer, as to the last two big tax cuts that were done in this country for the wealthy--in 2003 by President Bush, in 2001 by President Bush--we know what happened from those two tax cuts. In the 8 years of President Bush, the hallmark of his economic policy was two major tax cuts for the wealthy, and there was a 1 million job increase in those 8 years during George Bush's Presidency--a million jobs--not even a net increase, not even enough to keep up with people coming out of the Army or coming out of college or high school. During the Clinton years, where they had a mix of tax cuts, some increases for higher income people, and they balanced the budget, did some budget cuts that Senator McCaskill supports--some of those--we ended up during President Clinton's 8 years with a 22 million job increase. There was a 22 million job increase by managing the budget right and giving assistance to middle-class people. In the Bush 8 years, with tax cuts for the wealthy: 1 million jobs. Yet Republicans now are arguing that the most important thing, possibly, to do for the economy, the most important thing to do for our country, is to reward the people who have already done very well in the last 10 years, at the expense of the broad middle class who have seen basically stagnant wages or worse during this decade.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 691, submitted earlier today.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I come to the floor to share letters from Ohioans from all corners of my State, letters mostly from people who have lost their jobs and depend on something called unemployment insurance. It is insurance, not welfare, not giveaways. People work at a business. Their employer pays into the unemployment insurance fund. Obviously, it is money the employee does not get as income, so we could say it either way: the employee pays or the employer pays. Either way it is insurance. They pay into a fund. When someone loses their job, they get assistance from the fund. This is why it works so well. When the unemployment rate is above a certain level, a relatively high unemployment rate, we always have extended and maintained unemployment insurance benefits for those workers who have lost jobs. We do that for two reasons: One, because it is the right thing to do if someone loses their job. Whether it is in Boulder in the State of the Presiding Officer or in Galion, OH, it is the humanitarian thing to do. That worker who has lost their job can at least pay most of their bills then, at least stay in the apartment or house and pay the mortgage, pay the rent, pay for food, take care of the kids. They wouldn't be able to without the unemployment insurance monthly payments. The second reason we do it is, as one of John McCain's chief economic advisers said repeatedly, a dollar in unemployment benefits is about the best stimulus for the economy one could have. When we give a tax cut to a millionaire, as most of my Republican colleagues want to do, if we give $10,000 to a millionaire, they will likely not spend it. They have already spent their money on what they want because they have more than enough to do that. So a tax cut doesn't mean much to them. But an unemployment check means that an unemployed worker will spend that money in the community, at the grocery store, buying shoes for the kids, paying the property tax, paying for their rent and gas bill, paying for gas in the car to go around looking for jobs. The money is recirculated. It is a good economic stimulus and the right thing to do for the worker who has lost their job. That is why the Presiding Officer and others have fought so hard to make sure those benefits are there. It is not welfare; it is insurance. In spite of what some conservative politicians like to suggest, that it is people sitting around who don't want to work, almost everybody I talked to--whether it was in Conneaut or Middleton or Sidney or Portsmouth--who lost a job wants to go back to work. Unemployment compensation is never as much as the person is making on the job. That is under a formula. That is why they want to go back to work. Plus these are hard-working people who understand that they need to keep looking for a job. For every job out there, there are roughly five people seeking a job. That is a national figure. But in Ohio, it is no better. That is why I am going to share these letters. I will start with Timothy from Fairfield. That is a prosperous suburban Cincinnati community in Butler County in southwest Ohio. It happens everywhere, not just the inner city, not just rural Appalachia. It is not just small towns or medium-size cities. It is generally pretty affluent suburbs. He writes: Unemployment extensions end in about two weeks and once again my family worries about what the future will bring. The last delay made us unable to pay many bills on time and we still have not fully recovered. If another delay happens we will certainly be put in such a hole that I don't see us getting out of. Not to mention it's the holiday season and I really don't know what I would tell my 4 and 7 year old if Christmas wasn't as it has been in the past. I am in the manufacturing field. I worked as an inspector and quality engineer. This next week will be my first of my final 20 weeks of Ohio emergency unemployment. I search for openings in quality inspectors and quality engineers within a 50 mile radius of our town. How is he going to afford gas if his unemployment extension runs out? I found zero results. I have been applying for retail jobs, janitorial jobs, and maintenance jobs. If I even get to interview the answer is the same. You are way overqualified for this job. I was told that the new sporting goods store had over 3,000 applicants. Are both sides willing to do what needs to be done to avoid another delay? I don't know what we will do if the extension is not passed in time. It is unbelievable that my conservative colleagues are willing to give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires but are unwilling to maintain unemployment benefits for people such as Timothy. When one thinks about that, it is also the anxiety that somebody like Tim feels about his children, about his house, about his being able to provide what he needs during the Christmas season or any other season. So many people in this country have to wait until the Republicans drop their filibuster in order for us to maintain these benefits. That is pretty unconscionable. Kelly from Summit County, the Akron area in northeast Ohio, writes: Please help get the unemployment extension passed during this session. I am about to exhaust my benefits in three weeks. Everyday I look for employment, but to no avail. My mortgage company leaves no room for late or missing payments. I don't need the money for Christmas--I need it to pay my bills and my mortgage. There will be no Christmas this year, especially when I begin to get behind on payments. Kelly says what so many are saying in letters to our office, that this is essential. Getting this relatively meager unemployment assistance, not a lot of money but enough to at least pay her rent-- although I don't know if Kelly is male or female--but to pay the rent, not Christmas presents, nothing elaborate, not even Christmas dinner but to just pay the rent. Richard from Summit County says: I am writing to share the reality of my situation that I'm sure millions are also experiencing. Today I filed my final claim for unemployment. This is the moment that made me lay awake at night. The reality is at our home there will be no Thanksgiving and no Christmas this year. I hear carols being played, I see ads for Christmas sales. It makes me depressed like never before. I feel the gifts and celebrations are meant for other people--the ``haves.'' No more money for my diabetes medicine, dental checkups, eye drops for glaucoma. Never have I felt like throwing in the towel before now. I just wish my colleagues would talk to people like Richard: When I hear carols being played for Christmas sales, it makes me depressed like never before. I feel the gifts and celebrations are meant for other people. No more money for my diabetes meds, no more dental checkups, no more eye drops for glaucoma. Unemployment benefits are not going to make him comfortable or rich, but it will help him get through these rough times. Instead, to make a political point, my colleagues are saying we are not going to maintain unemployment benefits. The last one I will read is from Jacqueline from Cuyahoga County in the Cleveland area: I have been an unemployed human resources professional for a year and a half. Even after having applied for over 170 jobs, I am still very active in my job search. These are not people sitting around cashing their checks. She is still very active in her job search. I go to at least 2 networking events/meetings per week and I keep a positive attitude in spite of my situation. Yes, I have applied for jobs in other fields or professions which use similar and transferable skills. I get no response. I have worked with recruiters and head hunters, online networks, and have appealed to friends and family members to look for opportunities. I have worked full-time since I was 16 years old, even through college. At age 45 and as an educated professional with so much to offer an organization, I still want to work for many more years. She has worked since she was 16. She is now 45. She has worked twice as long as almost the age of these pages who sit in front of us. She has worked for 29 years. She is not a deadbeat. She doesn't want to sit around and collect unemployment. She wants a job. As I said, there are five people pursuing every job out there. Without unemployment benefits, my family would have lost our home by now. I am begging you to fight to extend unemployment benefits until more companies start hiring. Please don't let 15 million Americans have to worry about feeding their families this winter. Please urge your colleagues to pass an unemployment benefit extension before December 1. December 1 is approaching. We still can't get our Republican colleagues--it is pretty unbelievable. We have been through this for the third time, I believe, in the last year or so where we have begged and cajoled and pleaded and asked and done whatever we can to get our colleagues to say yes, to not filibuster, to get our colleagues to say yes, to get the supermajority, the 60 votes we need to extend the unemployment benefits. There is a lot of fear out there. Whether it is in Denver or Cleveland, whether it is in Trinidad or Mansfield, there is all kinds of anxiety and fear and anguish out there. We could do something in this body to lessen it for our fellow Americans. I ask my colleagues to move forward in maintaining unemployment benefits for the millions of Americans for whom the Christmas season, the holiday season will not be very happy this year. I yield the floor and 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. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. 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 order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I want to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

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 related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Banking Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 6166 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

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 related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Banking Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 6162 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I spent a lot of time, as my colleagues have, traveling our States during the elections, to be sure, but also since. I hear a lot of discussion from regular people--not from people running for office per se but regular people--about what this new health care law has meant to them. I meet 22-year-olds who are now on their parents' health insurance plan. If you are 22 in this country today, your chances of finding a job with decent health care are not real high in most places in our country, and they now celebrate the fact that they can be on their parents' health insurance automatically. That is a big victory for consumers and a big victory for those families. I also talk to people who have children who have preexisting conditions and could not get insurance as a result. The law now is, an insurance company cannot deny insurance to a family with a child with preexisting conditions. We also know now that someone who is sick and their health care is very expensive, that they cannot be thrown off their insurance because it costs the insurance company too much money. We know now, and I hear from small businesses who almost all want to insure their employees but simply cannot because of the high costs, they now are getting a 30-percent tax credit to be able to insure their employees, something, as I said, they wanted to do whether they live in Conneaut in northeast Ohio or Middletown and Hamilton in southwest Ohio. I see that all over my State--in Bowling Green, in Toledo, in Zanesville and Chillacothe and Columbus and Bellaire. We are also seeing that so many senior citizens are getting hit hard by high drug prices. We have begun. As one of the leaders in that effort on the HELP Committee, Senator Bennet, the Presiding Officer, knows that we have been helpful in now beginning to close that doughnut hole that seniors fall into. After they have had $2,000 of drug costs, they are still paying the premium every month, but they do not get any coverage until their costs go above $5,000. That is sort of a cruel bargain that this Congress, for reasons I did not exactly understand--I opposed it back then--passed the drug benefit and inflicted that on seniors. We are beginning to fix that. We know all that. Those are citizens I talk to about that. Put that aside for a minute, unfortunately, and look at so many elected officials in a State, conservative elected officials, mostly Republicans, who are saying we should repeal the health care law and we should bring back preexisting condition, take 23-year-olds, home from college or home from the service or whatever, and if they do not have TRICARE, throw them off their parents' health care plan, take away the tax cuts to small businesses. That is what they want to do and repeal this health care plan. My only question is, I guess I am waiting for the first Republican elected official--whether he is an attorney general in Ohio or elsewhere or whether he is a Congressman or she is a Congressman or a Senator--I am waiting for the first one who says: I want to repeal this plan. Take away these consumer protections; I want to repeal this plan and take away health insurance for people who are in high risk pools who are getting insurance now and people down the road who are going to get covered with health insurance, the 50 million Americans who do not have it and the tens of millions of Americans who are underinsured. I want to hear one of those elected officials, who is saying repeal the health care plan, say they are not going to take their government health insurance. I cannot believe the number of elected officials, mostly Republicans, who have been the beneficiaries of government- sponsored health insurance--taxpayer-financed health insurance for 10 years, 20 years, 30 years--who are saying: No, I want to repeal health insurance for millions of Americans who are about to receive it. Some of them are already getting it; all of them getting better consumer protections. They will keep their plan, paid for by taxpayers. They want to deny it to others. I am waiting for one of my colleagues--and Republicans around the State and around the country who are calling for this health care law to be repealed--to step up and say: Oh, I am not going to take government insurance either. I am still waiting for that day. 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. Over the last few months, our Nation has mourned the loss of several lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender teenagers driven to suicide because of hateful and ignorant bullying and harassment. These tragic circumstances brought families, friends, and concerned citizens together through vigils on public squares in communities all over this country and on college campuses throughout the Nation. Together, millions of fellow Americans have drawn attention to intolerance and violence that LGBT Americans face each day. Together, we can ensure all LGBT Americans that life will get better for them. As a father, I cannot bear to imagine the unspeakable pain endured by the parents of those teenagers who tragically took their own lives. No parent should have to bury a child. No child should ever feel so hopeless and so forgotten and so alone and so isolated that suicide seems like their only escape. But the rash of highly publicized suicides of LGBT students not only highlights the national epidemic of bullying these students face, it also reminds us that we all as adults, as clergy, as educators, or as peers of these students--we all have a role to play in preventing discrimination. Bullies target the vulnerable and subject them to cruelty through taunts in the classroom or on the Internet, through chants on the playing field or physical abuse in the neighborhood. Prejudices based on religion or race or disability or sexual orientation or gender or physical or intellectual differences too often translate into physical torment and isolation and abuse against others. LGBT youth, in particular, are frequently targeted by bullies. Public surveys indicate that 80 percent of LGBT students report regular harassment by fellow students--a rate three times that of heterosexual teens, three times the rate of their heterosexual peers. Seventy-five percent of high school students routinely hear homophobic remarks in school, reinforcing stereotypes and prejudices. Without a safe space to speak openly with a caring adult or a like-minded peer, victims are left to question their self-worth. On top of the self-doubt and insecurity that all young people feel already regardless of gender or race or sexual orientation--we have all been through that certainly as young teenagers and older teenagers, too, for that matter, but add to that the kind of insecurities that are put on them by bullying tactics, by so many people spouting homophobic remarks. Too many young gay men and women, boys and girls, are forced into secrecy about who they are rather than affirming the person they should proudly be. A brave young Ohioan named Nicholas sent me a letter detailing an attack by a schoolyard bully. Here is what Nicholas wrote: On September 18th, 2009 I was attacked by a student at my school for being gay. This student beat me in the head with a hammer three times. He chased me down so he could get the last two hits. The student attacked me for being gay. I have no way of using this attack to promote gay rights, to promote gay equality, but you do. And you could do this for me. I need your help more than anything. No one deserves to go through what I went through. My message to Nicholas and to all LGBT Americans is this: You are not alone. Life will get better. You can find the love and acceptance you deserve, and you will find the love and acceptance you deserve, free from fear and hate. You will realize your full potential every bit as much as anyone else because things are changing in this country. There is no acceptable justification for the violence experienced by Nicholas or the physical and emotional mistreatment of LGBT students in our schools and in our communities. That is why the Senate must take crucial steps to ensure that schools are safe places for learning, safe places for students, and not breeding grounds for bullying. First, we must pass the Safe Schools Improvement Act which would help schools implement LGBT-inclusive programming to combat bullying and harassment. Second, we must pass the Student Nondiscrimination Act which would bar schools which receive public money from implementing programs that discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Legislation alone, of course, will not eradicate or put an end to bullying, but we also know what legislation did for women, for children, for civil rights. Attitudes change over time. Legislation helps accelerate that change. That is why those two pieces of legislation matter. They will be major steps toward ensuring safety and equal treatment for all students in our school systems. Parents and teachers also have a special responsibility to help LGBT youth confront the bullying they face at school. They, too, should ensure that every student knows she is valued, knows he is valued, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. LGBT community centers or national organizations such as the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network are valuable resources for students, parents, and educators. I remember several years ago an event where students sat together as part of a gay/straight alliance at a high school in western Cuyahoga County. There were 10 students at 2 different tables, 5 gay students, 5 straight students, all supporting one another, understanding each other and accepting their differences. They can still care about one another, and they can protect them, in many cases, from some of the bullying that might have befallen some of them. To our own LGBT students who are either forced to live a lie or face hostility for simply living their lives, all of you should know there are resources to help you in times of need. The Trevor Project is the leading national organization focused on crisis and suicide prevention among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth. For more information, if you are feeling alone, anyone watching today feeling alone, helpless, or in crisis, people can visit the Trevor Project's Web site, thetrevorproject.org, or they can call the hotline at 866-488-7386. For anyone who is in suicidal crisis or in need of help, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by calling 1-800-273-TALK. To Nick: I don't normally come to the floor and talk about a service like this. I think, though, when people feel alone, they don't always know there is help out there for them. Young people need to know that it is getting better, that life will get better for them, so it is important to share that information on the Senate floor. To Nicholas: History is on your side. It will, in fact, get better. Workers fought for the right to organize, women fought for the right to vote, African Americans fought for equal justice, and now LGBT Americans of all backgrounds are fighting for equality. It is up to us to join this fight. It is up to us to be on the side of people whose lives are a little bit more difficult, perhaps, than others' lives. It is that spirit of inclusion, it is the pursuit of the American dream, that will, in fact, make it better for these young people, and it will make it better for all Americans. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 690, submitted earlier today.